User:ProfLA

[[BELOW ARE 8 DESCRIPTIONS OF THE WAY FILM “USED” TO BE. THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF FILM APPLY BOTH TO WAY FILM WAS PRODUCED AND DISTRIBUTED AND TO THE WAYS WE EXPERIENCED FILMS.

EXPLAIN HOW CONVERGENCE CULTURE FUNDAMENTALLY CHALLENGES OR CHANGES EACH OF THESE CHARACTERISTICS OF FILM. (There may be some overlap, but each answer should be different (12 points each)]]

'1. Gaps in the plot'' were not good. SO IF IN TRADITIONAL HOLLYWOOD FILMMAKING "Gaps" were NOT considered good (they were considered bad by critics), then how are gaps seen in transmediatic filmmaking? Are Gaps welcomed? Are they good? How are they filled? Why are they welcomed? (Prof LA)'''

Jenkins discusses the gaps in The Matrix, stating that no film franchise has ever made such demands of its consumers via means of transmedia storytelling in which participants are expected to 'do their homework' and fill in the gaps by watching shorts online, reading comic books, etc. This is now seen as something good because it engages people to participate and it gets them excited to know they're a pro at the movie and they may know more than the average viewer. In the older days of cinema, this was not a feasible task; people, especially critics that shaped the tastes, were not happy if a movie did not have a simple plot that ended with closure.

Gaps in the plot today can be useful for movies; they provide open doorways that lead to other pieces of the franchise. They are windows of opportunity for merchandising, cross promotion of products, that hopefully the consumer will consume, thus creating a commitment to the overall franchise. As with The Matrix sequels, many fans were left with many questions, some of which even lost interest because of the gaps in the plot, but many of which pursued the answers and became completely involved in the experience.

2. Excesses confused the viewer.

HINT: "The sheer abundance of allusions make it impossible for any one given consumer to master the franchise totally." (or to understand the film in a single sitting, as used to be the case in classic Hollywood filmmaking)pp 98=100

The extreme lengths that corporations and studios have went through in order to make as many people as possible aware of franchises that they want to market has not only left pieces of the information that tie up lose ends in many films' stories scattered, but has in many cases, more often than not with action films and comedies, has taken away much of the artistic integrity of film making. "The Matrix is entertainment for the era of collective intelligence"(Jenkins pg. 97) Viewers get more out of the experience if they compare ideas with fellow fans and share their resources. The release of the sequel to a revolutionary titled The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded, is a display of a typical marketing technique used by major studios that often keeps the viewer from completely understanding the artistic integrity behind the franchise. This is something that wold have never been achievable in the more primitive age of of cinema. The sequel opens without any indication of a recap of the what happened in its prequel also happens to end very abruptly. This only leaves Matrix fans waiting for the third installment of the series tie up the lose ends. Also the sequel won't need a recap if you have done your homework of the movie. The filmmakers also plant clues in the third film and end the series with a dissatisfying ending so that viewer plays the online computer game and/or the console game until the corporation decides to fully end the series. This scam also includes the addition of hidden meanings that may be able to make sense by unlocking different levels in the Matrix game. This marketing tactic has for many, taken away the memory of the deep, psychological, visually stunning and revolutionary film, "The Matrix", and has ripped out the soul of the franchise, thus leaving it with the memory of the sequel that was rushed to be made by the studios, and the mediocre video games. This has been done to most successful films that have had the ability to have sequels added to their stories, and has turned the art of film making into more of a money making machine than an a pursuit of artistic inspiration. In that sense, corporations have "confused the viewer". However, there are back stories in this film that had to be downloaded off the web or watched a separate DVD. Many fans do love dissecting every piece of information, absorbing every fiber of the movie experience, and then discussing it with other fans. This defiantly did help the awareness of the franchise grow, and has freed them of only being limited to enjoying their favorite franchise within the restrictions of a movie theater or living room with a dvd player.

3. The film-going experience was contained to one sitting whether at the theater or at the tv/vcr. In the traditional film industry, which was the classical age of cinema, people simply watched movies in theaters. Industry gatekeepers, notably the studios, had more control over viewers. In the old "Film 1.0" structure, the industry was controlled: what was watched, how it was watched, when it was watched, where it was watched. Now with "Film 2.0," in the age of convergence, things have changed. There has been a rise of digital technologies and people are no longer restricted by industry demands on how, when, why or what is viewed. Viewers are now watching movies via mediums other than the traditional movie theater. Now iPods, cell phones, the internet, and other technologies act as personal mobile theaters. Greater quality HD images have now become the monster threatening the film industry. Since the price of high definition sets has dropped dramatically, more and more homes are adopting these systems, greatly reducing theater ticket sales, hurting the film industry. This is beneficial to viewers because they can watch a film at their convenience, purchasing or renting movies, or viewing them for free, and allowing as many people that can fit in the room to watch without extra charge. People can sit in the comfort of their own homes and multi-task while watching a movie on a computer, television, or any available window into the cloud.

While transmedia stories are being told differently and in a non-linear fashion, movie-goers are being exposed to the stories of their preferred films through multiple media formats and users are becoming co-creaters. According to Jenkins, "the consumer who has played the game or watched the short clips will get a different experience from the movies than one who had just the theatrical film experience. The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts"(Jenkins pg. 104). Convergence culture is challenging to the gatekeepers, their box office ticket sales, and any other way the film industry can finance itself by making various types of media available for users to make contributions to legacy of a particular film, show, or franchise in their own way. Fans now can create their own spin off series', re-edit films, create remixes, create anime clips using the backbone of the films story, and share their work with the world with the help of multiple media venues, one of the most influential ones being YouTube. There is now a fan world being created outside the theater rather than just a two hour experience.

''' 4. “At first you pitched a good story, because without a good story you didn’t have a film. Then with sequels, you pitched a good character, because a good character could support multiple stories. THEN WHAT DO YOU PITCH NOW? (Prof LA)'''

Now the story and characters are hardly priority. It is more about aesthetics, multiple concepts and leaving room for exploration, allowing the viewer to be confused, to wonder and want to figure it out without getting bored. "The film need not be well made, but it must provide resources consumers can use in constructing their own fantasies... (Pg 100 Jenkins)" Today's films are more modified for the application of trans-media story-telling, and sequels are something very fractional to the whole project rather than the essential second and third steps of a successful franchise. The steady success of modern productions can be broken down into 2 elaborate qualities, according to Jenkins and Umberto Eco. First, "the work must come to us as a 'completely furnished world so that its fans can quote characters and episodes as if they were aspects of the private sectarian world,'" and second, "the work must be encyclopedic, containing a rich array of information that can be drilled, practiced, and mastered by devoted customers. (Pg 99)" These complex qualities are meant to correlate with trans-media story-telling and when expressed through the viewer/customer it comes out as no more simple than love, a love for the film, because it is turned into culture; into a project of discontinuity and never-ending predictions.

A fan can run around and talk all day about a film made for trans-media, because it has been twerked to meet all the other aspects of the fan's life at play; the entertainment realm has been filled by the one film through multiple conventions that are now entire media platforms, and is in thematic free-fall through every one of them. The Matrix is a movie, but then it was also a game on the fan's pc, then his console, and simultaneously merchandising appeared on his television, phone, several websites and maybe even with his Bic Mac and fries. In the short years after, the fan would find his Matrix game being continued in the sequel, where some questions would be answered and possibly even more introduced. Instead of being fed a continuous story, the fan is fed resources and he/she can follow the story him/herself. In the mean time, the entire story may make no sense, have multiple unexplained conclusions, may meet very few of the proper requirements meant for strong plot or it may just be down-right bad, but the fans don't know that and neither is it what they really care about.

 5. In traditional/classic filmmaking, the product remained the same across platforms (theater, tv, vhs)...well then in Convergence filmmaking does the product remain the same across all platforms? If not, how does it change? Why is it important that it changes? (prof LA)''' '''

In the past, film companies had the final word in a single film. The Production company ruled, as it provided the money, people, theaters etc. that gave a film a platform to exist. Due to the Producer's stronghold of the final say, what was released to the theater may not have always been what a director envisioned; a wide range of reasons, from artistic differences between director and producer to budgetary concerns, could have caused a film to not be truly finished in the eyes of the director upon its release. This dilemma can still occur, but with the advent of dvd, and television release for films it is a problem that can be overcome. Many times films need to be cut down from their original envisioning due to time constraints, with a dvd we don't have that problem. We are inundated with newer, better versions of films all the time. Director's cuts, extended scenes, and special features make it possible for the viewer to experience a film the way the auteur' intended for it to be seen without the constraints of the typical theater going experience.

'''6. Merchandising was used to promote films. Redundancy was ok. (In Convergence filmmaking, is redundancy ok?)'''

Merchandising is still used today to promote films but redundancy is not okay in the current film industry. [BUT WHY NOT?!]

Fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and Burger King give out action figures and other types of toys to promote movies (especially animated kids movies). However because of the convergence movement existing today, toys promoting the movie Shrek for example, aren't necessary to understand the characters and plot of the movie.

Disney is one of the biggest corporations that promotes their movies to appeal more to children and parents alike. In fact, there are several Disney stores throughtout the US and other countries that sell products such as backpacks that are used to get kids to be emotoinally attached to the characters of a certain Disney movie and/or show. Although convergence culture shows consumers that redundancy isn't okay 9*** HOW/WHY NOT?***, fast food restaurants aren't going to stop using merchandise to promote films.

(HINT: in the section on synergistic storytelling & co-creation) VIEWERS WANT THE NEW WORK TO OFFER NEW INSIGHTS AND NEW EXPERIENCES (not just printing star wars logos on gadgets) L.A.

7. Film making was a practice left to professionals.

With newly created resources and tools it is much easier for viewers to create their own films or small videos not only with a shoe string budget, but sometimes even within the confines of thier homes. There are many commercially-available programs that allow consumers to become the producers of content. Websites such as YouTube even encourage this behavior by being a sort of media window to the public to let these "grassroots" filmmakers get their work into the public eye. These commercial programs have become so accessible and user-friendly that some fan-films have become comparable to legitimate studio-produced works:
 * "Up until the moment the actors spoke, you wouldn't be able to tell whether that was a real Star Wars film or a fan creation because the special effects are so good..." (p.159, Chris Albrecht, AtomFilms official, on Star Wars: Revelations)

So while the acting may need polishing, the overall technical aspects of these fan-films are getting better. The line between professional and amateur is blurring. With the fans getting just as close to the real thing as possible, intellectual property debates stir up and this is where the corporations need to step in. "Traditional films" were made by producers and the other various people who worked for them (actors etc...). This made the idea of consumers using their creativity to contribute to a film impossible to do.
 * The idea of remixing a video from someone else (such as the one done by "Girl Talk") demonstrates something we have been doing all along which is sharing our stories just like our ancestors did in the past. On open source cinema, amateur film makers can remix any video and make it their own. Although piracy is used in these films, amateur film makers didn't stop showing their talent because they want to prove that using other people's work isn't wrong in their minds. The movement of remixing continues on today despite the problems that come up.

Even though it was a film done on a low budget, it depicts ''Shakespeare in Love’ in a very clear way. The scenes were filmed throughout the campus and his home, and the music was used from the original Star Wars movies. George Lucas in Love according to Jenkins "offers us a portrait of the artist as a young geek." This film proves that film making isn't just a practice left to the professionals. :Another example of an amateur film is called "Black." This film wasn't shown in the US theatres but is distributed at Jaman.com. This and other sites that are similar, their main goal is to be a digital art-house cinema for consumers. It offers a way for people a "universe of alternative films they otherwise might never have known they wanted to see, or had a clue on how to find if they did" (Robischon, pg.1). These sites are also a part of the growing age of convergence because they allow people to see movies on more than just one platform.

8. Film studios were more “prohibitionist,” they limited the ways we could participate with the film experience.


 * A movie studio, like LucasFilms, has more of a collaborative atttitude with its fans. It encourages fan participation in helping become a part of the franchise's universe in their own ways. Studios like Lucasfilms, "collaborationsists", see the fans vital contributers to building up the product (p.138). "Prohibitionist" usually applied to media industries like film, television, and the music industry. We were not able to expand on a movie or tv show,but in this new age of convergence, there is nothing stopping us from doing so and the Web is just a tool that encourages consumer expansion. Prohibitionists' main concern were fans who may capitalize on their product, going back to the argument of intellectual property. For example, Viacom set rules for the use of some trademarked names from the Star Trek franchise in ads for Star Trek conventions, and that the goal was so that fans would find their way to conventions that were run by Viacom (p. 156). Collaborationists tend to give their fans more liberties, but this is not to say that the fans are completely free to whatever they please. Even with a collaborationist studio like LucasFilms, rules were set for the fans so that none of them were bordering on copyright infringements:
 * "No fan fiction--which attempts to expand on the Star Wars universe--will be accepted. Films must not make use of copyrighted Star :::Wars music or video, but may use action figures and the audio clips providede in the production kit section of this site" (p. 159).

So even while LucasFilm created a site dedicated to fan participation, and even encouraged, it still limited them to using the resources that were provided to them, thus limiting their freedom and participation. The rules set for the Star Wars fans were embedded for less economical reasons, however, as it would be risky to simply post any sort of fan-fiction, especially those that compromised the franchise's public image.