The Cultural Gutter

beyond good and bad, there is awesome

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." -- Oscar Wilde

The Unnameable Future, Part II

Gutter Guest
Posted June 1, 2011

This month, Gutter Guest Stars John Crye and Todd Sharp continue their discussion of transmedia entertainment and The Unnameable Future.  Part I is here.

Brooke Thompson, “experience designer” and blogger at GiantMice.com, recently posted a follow-up to her article, “Transmedia Will Kill Hollywood Is Killing Transmedia,” which we referenced in last month’s guest spot here at the Gutter. Her article was a diatribe about how “Hollywood” has co-opted the term “transmedia,” as well as many of that form’s aspects, without giving transmedia or its pioneers proper respect. The follow-up article, entitled, “Rebooting Transmedia,” prompted a slew of confused and angry responses from other people who seem to care a whole, whole lot.

In it, she explained her ire:

I am angry and frustrated. I’m worried by how so many working in transmedia feel marginalized. I’m bothered by the fact that people who have done amazing work, seminal work, are abandoning the term. Now, I don’t care what people call their work or how they promote themselves, that’s a personal decision, but I do care that good work and innovative work may be overlooked or overshadowed because of it. I’m saddened by the fact that much of this is because of the way you defined transmedia for the [Producer’s Guild of America] credit. I’ve talked about this before, but there is something wrong when a professional organization systematically denies a significant portion of the people working in the field.

This makes sense, if it is truly the cause of the upset: she doesn’t like the fact that the Producer’s Guild awards the title “Transmedia Producer” to people whose work is arguably not transmedia while ignoring others – particularly those that she sees having originated the term and the methods. This is not an industry issue or even, necessarily, a reality issue, it is an issue with the PGA. We encourage her to take it up with them. Maybe she can get herself appointed the final arbiter of who gets credit for transmedia. That seems to be her concern, not the vitality of the field she so loves.

We do think there is a grain of truth in the bitching, but not the bit about anything “killing” anything else. The grain of truth is that the industry at large knows just enough about this trend to want to rush in and make money from it. And, true enough, very frequently the results are bad. By “bad” we mean poorly thought out or poorly constructed and not making good use of the technology or meme. Thompson, however, appears to mean “bad” in the Geek sense, meaning not up-to-the-minute in terms of complexity or ground-breaking in application. This kind of thing may be off-putting to an early adopter, but the bleeding-edge of any technology or artform is frankly not what most people need or would enjoy anyway. The fact that most transmedia being touted by “Hollywood” is really just slightly better brand management doesn’t kill anything, it just pisses off people like Thompson, who want their special word to mean the same thing to everyone else that it does to them. That is never going to happen because the world at large could give a shit. They just want someone to tell them a story. And unfortunately, they don’t really care if it hits all of the definitive points to be called Transmedia or Alternate Reality Experience or any other term a hardcore fan or creator throws out to the world.

At the end of the journey, all that you hold precious has to be let go. We are reminded of that every time we create something for others to enjoy. We are storytellers. That’s what we do. What we have learned along the way is that we love to tell stories that are not necessarily linear and that may require active participation from those that choose to imbibe these stories, and that may incorporate puzzles or different formats to give a full picture. But because of that, we are not the norm. We do it because we love it; for others to experience and enjoy and interpret. And yes, because our stories require audience participation and interpretation, that also means that the audience has the opportunity to define what it is that we do. They have the opportunity and the right to give it a name. So goes the evolution of storytelling.

The real truth is that EVERYTHING is being “killed” and regenerated simultaneously all the time. The guys that are decrying transmedia are the Geeks who are angry that the cool kids co-opted their shit, or they are traditionalists that hate change. Either way, they are both wrong to hate because neither knows what they’re hating. The traditionalists are still weeping over the fact that kids consume story on tiny screens. Hell, some of them are still pissed about digital vs. analog. And the “cool Transmedia” that the Geeks defend will no more resemble the future of the form than Zork resembles Halo, or CB radios resemble smart phones – or whatever else may be invented in the future. The fact is, whether one calls it “transmedia” or “content created using transmedia methods,” all entertainment in the future will involve certain elements of this storytelling form. In fact, it will become so ubiquitous that such terms will become pointless anyway.

It’s easy to point out the end of things, history will always make it easy for us to do that, but this is actually just the beginning. It is the future, and here in the present, it cannot be named.

~~~

JOHN CRYE & TODD SHARP ARE GEEKS AND WHORES WHO WILL TELL THEIR STORIES ON ANY AND ALL MEDIA THEY CAN EXPLOIT, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT PAY WELL.

Comments

3 Responses to “The Unnameable Future, Part II”

  1. SharpCrye , THE UNNAMEABLE FUTURE – PART 2
    June 3rd, 2011 @ 11:32 pm

    […] THE UNNAMEABLE FUTURE – PART 2 […]

  2. carol
    June 6th, 2011 @ 6:03 am

    thanks for the articles, guys. i’ve been thinking about something since your first piece that i can unfortunately only awkwardly put into words.

    the thing that strikes me about thompson’s position is that it is kind of tragic, not just because her art will be commodified and suits will use her word to describe what cross-promotion and more tie-ins. it’s that her complaint is essentially one of artistic control.

    she has a medium she wants to work in and control the final result. i sympathize. but as someone who has done art on much, much smaller scale with much less access to resources or audience, i recognize there is a trade-off in art. being obscure and unable to support themselves with their work is what artists like poets or non-figurative painters, individual artists who have a lot of control over their work, pay for their artistic freedom. not even including funding and such, film making is a collaborative art. working with other people is the price film makers pay to work in their medium. and, ideally, it shouldn’t really be a “price,” but something that leads people to do and make things they’d never think of on their own. but it does mean that one person doesn’t really get to control the work in its entirety from start to finish and in its final presentation.

    similarly, thompson’s chosen art form is not one that lends itself to the control of a single artist. in fact, because it involves multiple media–not just tv/film/online but also music, visual art, writing, web design, even baking in the “Why So Serious?” project–the problem of control and vision becomes even more complex. to create her work, she needs/wants access to resources and a big audience that require the participation of others–including other creators. i understand her desire to control her art and maintain her vision, but she’s chosen the wrong medium for that. i fear the sad truth of art is, you can’t have complete control of your work, any resources you would like to make it, a mass audience and make a living off it.

  3. The Unnameable Future : The Cultural Gutter
    May 14th, 2013 @ 8:14 pm

    […] month, John Crye & Todd Sharp return with “The Unnameable Future, Part II”, in which Thompson’s follow-up to “Transmedia is Killing Hollywood will Kill […]

Leave a Reply





  • Support The Gutter

  • The Book!

  • Of Note Elsewhere

    At the New York Observer, Ashley Steves writes about Craig Ferguson’s The Late, Late Show. “No one could ever prepare you for watching an episode of Ferguson’s Late Late Show. A friend could not sit you down and explain it (“Well, it’s really meta and deconstructive and there’s a horse”). There was really no good way to recommend it. It was something you discovered and became a part of. You had to stumble upon it on your own, perhaps restless or bored or simply curious while flipping through channels when your eye quickly caught some of the madness. And that’s the best part. It was an unexpected gift. At its worst, it could still send you to bed grinning and comforted. At its best, it was art. It was silly and fun and truly not like any other late night show.”

    ~

    At Comics Alliance, Chris Sims interviews Ed Brubaker about his work on Batman, Gotham Central and Catwoman. “When I look back at [Catwoman], I’m so proud of the first 25 issues of that book, when I felt like everything was firing on all cylinders. I probably should’ve left when Cameron Stewart left instead of sticking around. That’s one of those things I look back at and think “Ah, I had a perfect run up until then!” (Incidentally, Comics Editor Carol’s first piece for the Gutter was about Brubaker’s first 25 issues of Catwoman).

    ~

    At Sequential Art, Greg Carpenter writes a lovely piece about Charles Schulz’ Peanuts. “After only two installments, Schulz had solidified the rules for his comic strip.  Random acts of cruelty would punctuate this irrational world, and Schulz’s trapped little adults would be forced to act out simulations of human behavior, using hollow gestures to try to create meaning in a universe where no other meaning was evident.  If Shakespeare’s Macbeth had been a cartoonist, the results of his daily grind, “tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow,” might have looked somewhat similar—each character a “poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage” until he or she was heard from no more.”

    ~

    The Smithsonian Magazine has a gallery of US spy satellite launches. “Just as NASA creates specially designed patches for each mission into space, [National Reconnaissance Office] follows that tradition for its spy satellite launches. But while NASA patches tend to feature space ships and American flags, NRO prefers wizards, Vikings, teddy bears and the all-seeing eye. With these outlandish designs, a civilian would be justified in wondering if NRO is trolling.”

    ~

    At The Guardian, Keith Stuart and Steve Boxer look at the history of PlayStation.“Having been part of the late 80s rave and underground-clubbing scene, I recognised how it was influencing the youth market. In the early 90s, club culture started to become more mass market, but the impetus was still coming from the underground, from key individuals and tribes. What it showed me was that you had to identify and build relationships with those opinion-formers – the DJs, the music industry, the fashion industry, the underground media.” (via @timmaughan)

    ~

    Neill Cameron has re-imagined the characters of Parks & Recreation as members of Starfleet. (Via @neillcameron)

    ~

  • Spilling into Twitter

  • Obsessive?

    Then you might be interested in knowing you can subscribe to our RSS feed, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter or Tumblr.

    -------

  • Weekly Notifications

  • What We’re Talking About

  • Thanks To

    No Media Kings hosts this site, and Wordpress autoconstructs it.

  • %d bloggers like this: