Responses for April 22

9 thoughts on “Responses for April 22”

1. While I think Kushner’s article differs from Jenkins’ convergence culture in the way that Jenkins seems to approach it in a more democratic fashion reminiscent of Benkler’s argument. While both focus on the power of fandom (for example the creators and producers featured in Kushner’s article all admitted to being hardcore fans of “Star Wars” and “Star Trek”), Kushner examines it more in the light of commercial gain while Jenkins explores it more as “the ability to express your interpretations and feelings toward popular fictions through your own folk culture, and the ability to circulate what you create via the Internet so that it can be shared with others.”
   In this way, Jenkins argument approaches fan culture as a fringe–only a small percentage of individuals who read a certain book or watch a certain show will go on to write fan fiction for example. However, it seems to me that this “small fringe” has a greater societal value than the more inescapable commercial trend highlighted by the Kushner article. Jenkins writes that fandom (in this case fan fiction) acts as “both as a means of exploring a fictional realm and as a means of developing a richer understanding of yourself and the culture around you,” as well as creating connections between other cultures as was illustrated in the collaboration between “The Daily Prophet” when Warner Bros. tried to shut down a Polish fan site.
   On the other hand, Kushner’s article seems to be almost exploitive in nature–even if the producers deny that intent. And while I think the point is valid that the networks will probably migrate into other mediums–most importantly the internet–in order to not meet the same fate as the music industry, the motifs spin-offs of graphic novels and video games seem much more economic than democratic.

2. I think that the article did a poor job of showing that fans of shows like “Heroes” or “Lost” are not on the fringes of society like Star Wars and Star Treks fans were (and still are). I personally know people who like Heroes that range from my friends here at college, to my mother’s middle aged office co-workers. Before, being a fan of sci-fi and delving into the internet to satisfy those fan cravings carried with it a certain stigma that I think frightened a lot of people away from getting too into Star Wars/Trek. Back in the day, the internet was strange and scary, but now that it’s available to everyone and internet literacy is at an all-time high, sharing ideas on a message board or reading an online comic about a show isn’t considered geeky at all. Even “The Young and the Restless” has a message board! So what I’m saying is, no, convergence culture is not on the fringes, it’s definitely the new normal.

   I think in the future television will only serve as the first layer of exposure for any kind of series, and the net will serve as its primary expressive force. Like one of the men in the article said, sites could allow fans to download a video file that would delete after watching it, and then they could download a different file for a fee that would give them the video, plus something extra. This way, the content could get the same kind of exposure that free downloads on the internet get, and if fans liked it (and of course someone would like it if it can get so much exposure) they could pay for it. Everyone wins!

3. Although I knew about Star Trek and Star Wars having a huge amount of fandom, I did not know about all the fascinating networks of media hidden behind popular television shows today, like “Heroes” and “Lost.” Kushner explains how fans desire the depths of story lines outside of the actual television shows, and they access them through other forms of media, such as online blogs, novels, online or printed comics, and even fantasy gaming.

   I agree with Melissa’s point that Kushner makes this phenomenon seem more commercial and democratic. I mean, what’s up with this “Hollywood Geek Elite” eating calamari and chocolate-dipped donuts and drinking vodka in the back of some fancy cafe on Sunset Boulevard? They are meeting and discussing their methods about how they have created or are creating their fan bases, and as Moore says, “there are probably enough people who can make it a going concern for you– if you can find them, if you can monetize them.”
   Jenkins seems to be much more conservative in his views of fandom, by saying that only a small amount of individuals who engage in such media actually go on to discuss with others and write his/her own fantasy continuation edition.

   I feel that convergence culture indeed does serve as the “new normal” and that people everywhere are connecting to the internet and networking and sharing information about these topics. It’s the fact that the internet is used by EVERYONE, and not just those geeks and people who dared to use it back in the day. In the direction that we, as a people and a society, are going now, I think that the future of media production and consumption will experience vast changes as practices of television broadcast and internet consumption mingle with each other. I bet that in 5-10 years, it will be the law to own an iPhone…

4. i just want to clarify that if convergence culture is the “new normal”, it still only applies to certain societies and classes. nowadays, even though “everyone” has access to internet, having the time to becoming a fan of anything requires time, energy and a social/economic comfort that not many people have.
   then these fans with a certain economic status become what people who produce media look for. in other words: fandom is beneficial both for the consumers and the producers (these two terms are usually shared by one person).
   the reason why fandom stopped being a “geeky” thing and became “cool” is because it is unconsciously related with a determined group of people. having time/energy/means to collaborate in something that won’t give you anything in return (besides the pleasure of being part of a group with your same interests) is now considered a superior possibility.
   since fandom benefits the producers, it will soon enough become the norm, but only in the countries that share the values to which it stands for.
   (does this make sense? i could clarify it tomorrow if needed….i just read the comments and thought about the way in which people from other countries perceive all these Star Trek festivals and online groups…and my experience doesn’t relate to the previous comments…)

5. In a general way, I agree with Melissa and Steve: Kushner’s article pinpoints economic success, and Jenkins focuses on the expectation of “democratic,” deep interactivity in created media. However, I’d point out that the fan is a common thread in both pieces. The “Geek Elite” focuses on Joss Whedon’s back end profits, not only because one finds more secure and long-term income there, but also, as Whedon says, because it’s a validation of the work. A show, movie, novel, etc. that accrues back end profits tells the creator that he has invested fans in the world that he created and that he has played well in it, that he has not disappointed them in the stories told within that attractive fictive realm. The creative method of Kring, Moore, Whedon, and the rest is essentially that of Heather Lawver and her team of fans, the main difference being that the former group creates a story world to play in, whereas the latter group expands upon an extant story world in their play.

   This is a vibrant, fascinating process, and not, as I think Erin might fear, considered non-normative, part of a lunatic fringe, or too geeky to get any real attention. There is a “Geek Elite,” an elite group of folks in power with “dweeb/nerd/fankid” written next to their names for an extra lettre de cachet. Most of us are cashing in on the cool factor associated with geekery in the advancing era of perma-technology and massive fandom that finds its way to the screen/page.

6. Transmedia response
   One aspect of the article that surprised me was the openness the creators of “Heroes” and “Lost” spoke with regarding marketing their shows as transmedia objects. The creators said three different times how they are looking to cash in on the fandom of their shows. If I were a fan of the show, this would make me very cynical about the products they would offer me to “enhance” my “Lost” experience.

   Also, after reading the Jenkin’s chapter on “The Matrix” synergy, I have become alarmed about this trend of transmedia storytelling. I believe that it is too much to ask of an audience to view the anime and video games that go along with the film. The first Matrix movie was wonderful, but I believe the others failed (which I truly believe they did) because they expected the consumer to go the extra step to understand everything. I remember reading a review of the final Matrix movie, and the complaint was that the entire movie was subtext—it you didn’t know what they were talking about, you were screwed because there was no overt explanation. I now understand this confusion was born out of an assumption that I would play the video game in between movies. I really hope this is not the future of Hollywood—I have enough trouble watching all the shows in order just to understand the plot of shows like “24” and “Lost” (which I enjoy), but I’m not about to go buy a comic book or video game to get an “enhanced” experience.

7. I think that both Brian and Micaela bring up excellent points; even if convergence culture and transmedia storytelling are the “new norm” in the sense that the most critically acclaimed and substantive shows on television nowadays are constructed as part of a transmedia story-verse (“Lost,” “Heroes,” “New Amsterdam,” “Battlestar Galactica” and the like) and hence would seem to point toward television’s future, these shows in many ways ask as much from their fans as they give them in terms of time, money, and attention. As Micaela pointed out, not everyone has the kind of social or economic freedom to devote themselves to a full transmedia textual experience, and even if some people do they often choose not to become full-fledged “fans” in that sense. Jenkins gives a powerful example in the failure of the “Matrix” sequels. And of course, this whole discussion only applies in areas of the world that are well-connected in terms of network infrastructure – transmedia storytelling is only possible where many different kinds of media are easily and simultaneously accessible, which at this point effectively limits the discussion to the Americas, Europe, and parts of Asia.

   I was struck in the Kushner article about how some members of the “geek elite,” especially Joss Wheedon, laid out their creative strategies in such explicitly economic terms. This seems so surprising, I think, because we normally think of “geekery” as something removed from concerns of profit and opposed to notions of “selling out” and the like. However, I think these strategies are, at least at the present cultural moment, the key to the success of transmedia storytelling for the fans who consume it. It’s quite easy for a creator to do whatever he or she wants in terms of storytelling—and to have some measure of control over their content—when it makes tons of money. But the ultimate motivation here seems to still be the storyworld; the beauty of convergence culture is that people will probably still write Harry Potter fan fiction and construct backstories for Star Wars characters long after the franchises have ceased to be profitable—and in many cases this culture has led to the regeneration of formerly defunct storyworlds (Battlestar Galactica, J.J. Abrham’s upcoming “Star Trek” reboot, the new Nolan “Batman” movies, etc.)

8. Both Brian and Derek bring up excellent points regarding Jenkins’ book and the Kushner article. In terms of the convergence culture, I agree that it really is a lot to ask fans of television series and movie sequels to also devote themselves to the transmedia that comes with the successful media. After awhile, it seems as if it would be really difficult to balance watching the show, reading blogs, comics, and other articles related to the show, and then buying the video games (and possibly video game consols) that go along with the show. It is a creative strategy and an easy way to trick the consumers; however, it definitely could get overwhelming. It makes it seem as if it is a competition as to who can be the biggest, most devoted fan- an ongoing battle. The ‘new normal’ certainly has become the norm because more and more shows are expanding their products and finding new ways to get their audience’s attention. It is no longer for the ‘geek elite’, or for specialized audiences, as it used to seem with Star Wars and Star Trek.

9. When I first picked up Jenkins’ “Convergence Culture,” I assumed he was going to make an argument about different media converging to form one mass medium. I don’t think this is what he means by “convergence culture.” Instead, he is arguing that old media and new media have come together to form a new media ecology that involves both television and youtube, for example.

   With this definition of “convergence culture,” I think that in many ways “convergence culture” has become the norm for all audiences. This is not to say that all audiences are writing their own texts, but instead that they participate as viewers in a converged manner. As the Harry Potter example suggests, users are consuming media both online and in conventional ways (reading in this case).

   The second, more important part of convergence culture will hopefully come later when people start producing their own content. Therefore, the “geek elite” is still obviously a fringe phenomenon. And this leads us to the all important question: will convergence culture and the emerging online worlds that Bogost and Benkler discuss ultimately lead to positive social change? As Professor Mittell pointed out in the beginning of class it is important to be wary of anything that is utopian or dystopian. But I believe that the emerging convergence culture will be a step in the right direction and certainly an improvement over television and other one way lean back mediums.