Transmedia: Sort of... Counter-Productive?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
Had always planned to do a few things for the feature:

* Small Game (App Format, iPhone/Android)
* Trailer App
* Movie App
* Comic Book App
* Small Scale Web Series (1-2 minute high concept adventures, vfx, etc)
* Ads

But, I'm realizing that we're a small group of people with smaller pockets (see: empty) and taking on transmedia means that we're limiting the forward momentum of getting to other projects, building a brand and trying to really find sustainable income.

It's okay for big guys to do it, they've got the money and infrastructure, not to mention the IP's, to do so. But, when it comes to small scale... spending four years doing transmedia for one project? In hopes of what? Selling it directly to an audience?

So the question or thought is... doesn't Transmedia (as fancy as the name sounds for stuff that's been going on forever...) equate to being counter-productive for those trying to keep a forward momentum?

It's static, you're trying to get the word out about your product for various reasons, not limited to the idea that it probably doesn't have very strong legs of its own. Versus, getting onto another project, moving that forward and being prolific?

I'm still sort of lost in my own thoughts about this, but that's the major one. It just seems counter-productive to spend so much time and money on it.

Someone offer a different perspective?
 
Yeah, hopefully Mark will chime in. I know it's like his specialty. Also wanna get some other perspectives, if anyone else is doing it.
 
I've heard transmedia defined differently by different people. and i'm sure Mark has his own perspective.

but the narrow definition would be telling a story across multiple platforms. so to get the whole story of Superseeds for example, you would have to buy the mini-comics for some early stories, you have to visit the fake web site to learn how the villain developed his plan, you would have to see the short film sponsored by gatorade to see how the characters first met, you'd have to see the feature film for the main adventure story, and afterward, you'd have to buy the video game to see a new adventure with one of the side characters. this is the definition I tend to think of. and marketing material doesn't really fit into that if it's not being used to tell part of the story unique to that platform. and with that in mind, if the story you want to tell is so expansive that it spans multiple media platforms, then I don't think its counter productive. because it doesnt have to be about ramping up to a feature. the feature is one component, one chapter in a larger story. and it can be used in such a way that you've provided several gateways for people to enter this world. it can be shaped so that they hit certain platforms when you want them to, but it can also be opened up so that they move where they want and even contribute new content to the world.

the looser definition would be anything that expands the audience's understanding of the story universe. and that can go so far as including behind the scenes on the making of the movie, a documentary on kholi's sources of inspiration, a sound track of songs inspired by the world, etc.

also curious to hear what mark would have to say. and i imagine he's sick of seeing this poster i made for him.

markor.jpg
 
That's a much better understanding of it, Zak. I had always thought of it as another way to market, but when viewing it as a way to get into a world beyond just a feature then it's a different story. In that case, I can see it as investing a lot of time and money into one product or brand, which isn't counter-productive but another path. I don't think the transmedia would help in my case, unless I started with webisodes about the two title characters.

Which would mean less attention to the next project.

Thanks for explaining it to mine brain!
 
I agree with Zak, I think you have to look at it as actually giving the audience more story, not just marketing as you ramp up to the feature. Hell, my next project may not even have a feature. Features are dead on the Indie level I think. I think you have a better chance at making a video game with your story in it at this point. Easily a better chance to make your money back. Or a web series.

But like everything else on the indie level, you can't really do a lot of the Transmedia stuff without more money. It's vastly more expensive than just making your film, because now you need a tech company (I have one), a comic book artist, etc.

I have no plans to try to execute what I want to do on my Indie budget. My Transmedia plans for The Lost Children involve executing certain elements at some very high profile events, in order to raise awareness and attract $$$. All of 2011 has been about me navigating into this position. And I will soon will have some very big announcements along those lines too, but cannot say anything yet.

But all of our elements are designed to give you story that's not in the movie. Certain things we left out of the movie, and certain things we just think are so awesomely cool, we think audiences want to learn more about them too. So yeah, as Zak said, I look at it as a way to tell the whole story across platforms. Or further explore themes. Not just assume the feature is the be all end all. It's really not going to be that way in the future, I think.

Of course, not every story is suited, and if you have no real reason, then don't do it. But you should know that more and more of the big guys in the industry are starting to rely on stories that stretch across platforms from inception. And for $$$ reasons, not for some vague notion of artistic blah blah. With audiences all over every device, it's harder and harder to keep their attention. Hell, like 86% of kids now get on their mobile phones DURING TV shows. So more companies are releasing apps to "Check in" to a show. And I think you start to see more real time apps that offer more content, or social stuff DURING a TV show. Make no mistake, for Hollywood, Transmedia is all about $$$. But at very high levels in the industry, this is where everything is headed.

So for me, it's a lot like software. You have to be aware of where things are going to stay relevant. You don't have to do any of this stuff, but I do think writer/directors are going to have to be fluent in it and know how to deliver this kind of project come the next decade.
 
Mark Harris said:
Features are dead on the Indie level I think.
Click to expand...

what leads you to this conclusion?

But like everything else on the indie level, you can't really do a lot of the Transmedia stuff without more money. It's vastly more expensive than just making your film, because now you need a tech company (I have one), a comic book artist, etc.
Click to expand...

does your tech company create apps for filmmakers?
 
Mark Harris said:
I agree with Zak, I think you have to look at it as actually giving the audience more story, not just marketing as you ramp up to the feature. Hell, my next project may not even have a feature. Features are dead on the Indie level I think.
Click to expand...

How did you arrive to the dead thing?

But like everything else on the indie level, you can't really do a lot of the Transmedia stuff without more money. It's vastly more expensive than just making your film, because now you need a tech company (I have one), a comic book artist, etc.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I've access to all of that on a scale where I could produce those assets, but even at the low cost it's more about the time spent doing it.
I have no plans to try to execute what I want to do on my Indie budget. My Transmedia plans for The Lost Children involve executing certain elements at some very high profile events, in order to raise awareness and attract $$$. All of 2011 has been about me navigating into this position. And I will soon will have some very big announcements along those lines too, but cannot say anything yet.
Click to expand...

Well thanks for the info either way. I know you're pretty knee-deep in the Transmedia stuff so glad that you could share with us. Hope everything's turning out, man.

Of course, not every story is suited, and if you have no real reason, then don't do it. But you should know that more and more of the big guys in the industry are starting to rely on stories that stretch across platforms from inception. And for $$$ reasons, not for some vague notion of artistic blah blah. With audiences all over every device, it's harder and harder to keep their attention. Hell, like 86% of kids now get on their mobile phones DURING TV shows. So more companies are releasing apps to "Check in" to a show. And I think you start to see more real time apps that offer more content, or social stuff DURING a TV show. Make no mistake, for Hollywood, Transmedia is all about $$$. But at very high levels in the industry, this is where everything is headed.

So for me, it's a lot like software. You have to be aware of where things are going to stay relevant. You don't have to do any of this stuff, but I do think writer/directors are going to have to be fluent in it and know how to deliver this kind of project come the next decade.
Click to expand...

The outlook sounds plausible, and I'm sure you already know since you're at it all the time. How does it affect no-name, no-budget, and lack of serious IP producers? It's one thing to do it with something that's already got a huge following from the start, but how does it apply to projects that have very little going for them to begin with? It seems like it would take years upon years to build enough of a following where it would begin to pay off monetarily? Or, am I still thinking of it the wrong way?
 
ugafan said:
what leads you to this conclusion?
Click to expand...

Well, I should say that comes with a lot of qualifiers. But it's based on some of what I'm seeing happening in the Indie Film world, and in the world in general. I guess I should expand the statement. I think many young people who have been drawn to indie film over the past generation or so will not be drawn to it in the future. I think the things that influence kids as they grow up are shifting so rapidly, that...feature films are going to play a much smaller role in their dreams than they did for say me and Zak. So I think Indie film as the dream machine it's been for the past 20 yrs, and esp the past 10 yrs with cheap-o gear, is going to fade away.

And I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've been witnessing some not small players making moves that lead me to believe they think the same.

does your tech company create apps for filmmakers?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
Kholi said:
How did you arrive to the dead thing?



Indeed. I've access to all of that on a scale where I could produce those assets, but even at the low cost it's more about the time spent doing it.


Well thanks for the info either way. I know you're pretty knee-deep in the Transmedia stuff so glad that you could share with us. Hope everything's turning out, man.



The outlook sounds plausible, and I'm sure you already know since you're at it all the time. How does it affect no-name, no-budget, and lack of serious IP producers? It's one thing to do it with something that's already got a huge following from the start, but how does it apply to projects that have very little going for them to begin with? It seems like it would take years upon years to build enough of a following where it would begin to pay off monetarily? Or, am I still thinking of it the wrong way?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case at all. Even back to the dark ages of this stuff with Blair Witch. An unknown story. But people were clamoring on the web for more material. The filmmakers say they started making that stuff because the audience was looking for it. So I think if they had had it already...and I think it's very much that way now. If you make something that kicks ass, people will want more of it. So if you have a strategy in place to give them more, in some other ways they get entertainment, I think you'll be fine.

From test screenings and various other individuals watching my film, I know for a fact, that when we reach through to the right audience (and I know they are there now), there is going to be no end of their hunger for the content of my story. Esp in a case like mine where the content can really breed speculation from the audience.

Another example is Primer. If they had been ready for the Internet to take off with all of the speculation, I think they could have made that thing a much larger phenomenon. People wanted to engage more, learn more, figure out more, and they went looking for it.

So it always comes back to the same thing. Make something ****ing awesome, the rest takes care of itself.
 
Ahhhh. I see what you're saying, Mark. That makes sense. With the various ways available to ingest content, the influence and the types of influence are different. Its funny that you categorize yourself and Zak in the same group. I think you're right though. I'm about ten or so years younger and I grew up on video games and anime, both of which still are a huge part of my media diet.

They're also great sources of my primary influence, and I realize you can't attach someone to a feature film like you can a game or episodic content unless youve got an epic like Harry Potter n your hands. It would also mean speeding up the rate at which content is released.

Pretty heavy to think about ,though.
 
Mark Harris said:
I don't think that's the case at all. Even back to the dark ages of this stuff with Blair Witch. An unknown story. But people were clamoring on the web for more material. The filmmakers say they started making that stuff because the audience was looking for it. So I think if they had had it already...and I think it's very much that way now. If you make something that kicks ass, people will want more of it. So if you have a strategy in place to give them more, in some other ways they get entertainment, I think you'll be fine.

From test screenings and various other individuals watching my film, I know for a fact, that when we reach through to the right audience (and I know they are there now), there is going to be no end of their hunger for the content of my story. Esp in a case like mine where the content can really breed speculation from the audience.

Another example is Primer. If they had been ready for the Internet to take off with all of the speculation, I think they could have made that thing a much larger phenomenon. People wanted to engage more, learn more, figure out more, and they went looking for it.

So it always comes back to the same thing. Make something poo pooing awesome, the rest takes care of itself.
Click to expand...

True. I was one of those people. And perhaps I would pay for more content as well if available. But, how many others would and can you sustain on those minuscule numbers? Just trying to process while I have the chance to choose a path.
 
Mark Harris said:
I think many young people who have been drawn to indie film over the past generation or so will not be drawn to it in the future. I think the things that influence kids as they grow up are shifting so rapidly, that...feature films are going to play a much smaller role in their dreams than they did for say me and Zak. So I think Indie film as the dream machine it's been for the past 20 yrs, and esp the past 10 yrs with cheap-o gear, is going to fade away.

And I'm not the only one who thinks this. I've been witnessing some not small players making moves that lead me to believe they think the same.
Click to expand...

interesting stuff. i would like to hear more of your ideas about where you think we're headed.
 
Kholi said:
True. I was one of those people. And perhaps I would pay for more content as well if available. But, how many others would and can you sustain on those minuscule numbers? Just trying to process while I have the chance to choose a path.
Click to expand...

That's a catch 22. Would the numbers for primer have been as small if they'd had content waiting? It's just like a film to me. You don't know how many people will come until you put the effort out there to get them to come.

I don't know honestly. Maybe it's not. I know that to do the things I want to do, I need more money. So like I said, I'm spending my time this year doing things to attract that money, rather than trying to do it all on my own.

But when I spoke at Lincoln Center last month at the IFP cross-media forum, one theme kept coming out of all of the case studies, and that's that the content creators were always just trying to keep up with the audience. The audience already wanted more, already wanted to watch stuff on their phones, or wanted to interact with the characters on Twitter, etc. The content-makers were always just following what the audience wanted, and barely keeping up.
 
Kholi said:
Ahhhh. I see what you're saying, Mark. That makes sense. With the various ways available to ingest content, the influence and the types of influence are different. Its funny that you categorize yourself and Zak in the same group. I think you're right though. I'm about ten or so years younger and I grew up on video games and anime, both of which still are a huge part of my media diet.

They're also great sources of my primary influence, and I realize you can't attach someone to a feature film like you can a game or episodic content unless youve got an epic like Harry Potter n your hands. It would also mean speeding up the rate at which content is released.

Pretty heavy to think about ,though.
Click to expand...

A quick follow up to this, I just read this article today from Cannes. I think this is the other thing about Indie film dying. At least here. We all know the climate is pushing more and more filmmakers toward what they think "sells." Also a good point in the article about how Indie was consumed by the studios and became another genre.

The article also mentions someone like Spike Lee, traditionally one of the most indie filmmakers ever, taking projects to TV now. Because HBO is much more likely to take a risk on something different than a movie studio will.

With this kind of climate, as I said, I don't doubt we will see more people who might have gone into film, maybe going into video game design, or some other technology business. In technology, not only are there buckets and buckets of money laying around all the time, but the people owning those buckets really really love new ideas and things they haven't seen before.

And back to the subject at hand, this is one more thing that attracts me to Transmedia. In some ways, it's thought of a little more like a tech start-up than a movie...that's just the vibe I get, probably because there are so many other disciplines bleeding in and not just movie people.
 
Couple more links I think fit into this discussion:

Is it a video game, or is it a movie? Might be cool if ten years from now, it's both. Looks like that's the way they're leaning. And the article has a point. When was the last time Hollywood innovated storytelling? And as he also points out: this thing will make sick money to boot.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/23/gaming-makes-hollywood-look-embarrassing

And here is a very good succinct interview with one of the masters in this realm. He lays out some very clear definitions, and good examples:
http://mobilizedtv.com/talking-about-transmedia-with-jeff-gomez
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top