Another draft/stab at - my transmedia rating

OK - this is the latest definition I am using - ideas and comments??

TRANSMEDIA NECESSITY RATING

I have devised this system to use, for now, until I find something that works along the same way. Basically I am looking at a web series that is part of a transmedia narrative/story and trying to determine how it ties into the overall universe. Now this rating looks ONLY from the perspective of the web series. I am NOT rating the entire transmedia experience and trying to judge that.... that is a whole other complex Gordian Knot.

This rating simply (haha, right, simple) looks at a web series and examines how its own story is affected by the other transmedia sources. Essentially, when someone views the web series, how much of the other transmedia sources do they need to have experienced to understand the web series.

A rating of 1 means the web series can be viewed completely independently of any other transmedia source and none of the story or universe is lost. This means whether you view the other sources or not, the story the web series tells is not enhanced or detracted from or by the other transmedia and conversely, the other sources can be viewed without ever seeing the web series. This is more of a world-building or overdesign type of transmedia. This also ties into the real-time interactive forms of transmedia that are done when a series is first released and are more promotional in nature. Thus the web series and other sources add enrichment in terms of understanding and experiencing entire story but the necessity to having ALL transmedia source information is low. As Henry Jenkins mentions (henryjenkins.org/2009/09/the_aesthetics_of_transmedia_i.html )- the transmedia is used more to adapt a current story then to have a deeper meaning of transmedia storytelling. So this is rating falls more as Transmedia Adaptation Story-telling.

A rating of 5 means the web series is very much a part of the larger narrative, almost more like it is a chapter from a book and if you do not read all of the chapters, you will not finish the book and thus the story. So the web series tells once piece of the narrative and thus goes beyond what is presented in the other sources, conversely, the other sources go beyond the web series and the omission of those sources means the web series can not be fully understood. This is much more of a serial or connected transmedia story. So the necessity of needing to see the web series and all transmedia elements to understand and have the complete story is high. So this rating falls more as Transmedia Extension Story-telling.

Most transmedia web series fall somewhere in between. The web series can be viewed as a separate story, yet elements from other sources pop up in the web series and visa versa. This means to understand the entire narrative, you need all the sources, and once you have all the sources, you can rewatch the web series and see new elements. HOWEVER, you can still have a complete story and understand much of the universe just from one source (the web series). There are some good examples in www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=5264.

Most transmedia web series fall somewhere in between. The web series can be viewed as a separate story, yet elements from other sources pop up in the web series and visa versa. This means to understand the entire narrative, you need all the sources, and once you have all the sources, you can rewatch the web series and see new elements. HOWEVER, you can still have a complete story and understand much of the universe just from one source (the web series). There are some good examples in www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=5264. And I leave you with an excerpt from his blog article.

---------

from - www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=5264

This strategy differentiates the new transmedia storytelling from your typical franchise. In most film franchises, the same characters play out their fixed roles in different movies, or comic books, or TV shows. You need not consume all to understand one. But Henry envisages the possibility of creating a whole that is greater than its parts, a vast narrative experience that doesn’t end when the book’s last page is turned or the theatre lights come up. His idea seems to be echoed in Will Wright’s suggestion:

It’s a fractal deployment of intellectual property. Instead of picking one format, you’re designing for one mega-platform. . . . We’ve been talking about this kind of synergy for years, but it’s finally happening.

Stimulating as this prospect is, it remains rare. The Matrix is perhaps the best example, but Henry suggests that it’s also an extreme instance: “For the casual consumer, The Matrix asked too much. For the hard-core fan, it provided too little” (p. 126). More common is a Genette-style transposition, in which the core text—usually the movie—is given offshoots and roundabouts that lead back to it. As I understand it, the Star Wars novels operate under the injunction that although they can take a story situation as the basis for a new plot, in the end that plot has to leave the films’ story arc unchanged. Similarly, websites with puzzles, games, clues, and other supplementary material tend to be subordinate to the film, planting hints and foreshadowings (The Blair Witch Project, Memento). Alternatively, the A. I. website provided a largely independent story world that impinged on the movie’s action only slightly.

The “immersive” ancillaries seem on the whole designed less to complete or complicate the film than to cement loyalty to the property, and even recruit fans to participate in marketing. It’s enhanced synergy, upgraded brand loyalty.