The “Validity” of Cross-Media Franchises
April 2nd, 2008 by BenI think it is worth continuing the discussion about the merits of franchises that span TV, movies, comic books, action figures, McDonalds Happy Meals, etc. Previously criticisms were raised about its destruction of traditional narrative techniques — completeness, comprehensibility, enjoyability, etc.
I briefly mentioned Star Wars in relation to this, and I’d like to outline its cross-media tradition and give my opinion about it, but there are many series worth discussing here. Professor Rehak, for example, focused on The Matrix, and made the insightful comment that the series has not really “stuck around” like Star Wars or Star Trek.
1. The original Star Wars trilogy made reference to many elements not explained in the context of the movies. What are the Clone Wars? How did the emperor seize power? How did Darth Vader become who he is? Many places and technologies were also only mentioned in passing. Most of these “comprehensibility” complaints were not raised by viewers of the Trilogy. My opinion is that it’s because the movie followed archetypal narratives — a war is a war, and we can imagine the details of the Clone Wars. An evil dictator is an evil dictator. The plot could be understood without understanding the details. Many fans would later find enjoyment in these details, however, with publications similar to those shown by Professor Rehak about Star Trek. Of course these details also left room for the new trilogy.
2. The new trilogy in my opinion followed the same techniques in many ways as the original trilogy. Yet there was a negative response about most aspects of the new movies. Plot holes were declared marketing ploys for more action figures, video games, etc. However, the difference is that in the original trilogy, the details truly were unexplained. In the time between the two trilogies, cross-media story telling had taken over and, for example, in novels and comic books many of the “plot holes” in the new trilogy had already been explained. The villains in the new trilogy, for example, were not brand-new creations, but had complex backstories already published.
So the question is whether one could understand the new trilogy without reading all these other cross-media sources, and whether one should have to. I know that after watching Ep.1-3 the first time, going back again had them make a lot more sense, even without resorting to extra-textual information.
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
I fully understand and agree with your point that, when used wisely, archetypal narratives simplify the process of establishing character and story. To borrow your point, many people are able to look beyond the missed details and appreciate the bigger picture. However I think that with the advent of the internet, and its widely-appreciated capacity to foster and breed cross-media participation, the everyday fan/audience/critic requires much more than that. Which is why (I would venture to guess) it is the case that the narrative practices of yore are reshaping. Cross-media fandom is so prevalent, that our appetites now crave the details of which we were once deprived, however mundane. So that’s where my mind goes when you said that “fans would later find
enjoyment” in the details. To me it sounds like the evolving tastes of a fan community satisfying those new cravings retroactively.
I’m not too familiar with Star Wars and I can only speculate, but I think that citing extratextual info is an effective way to engage a contemporary, fannishly active (did that make sense?) audience like the Star Wars fanbase, and if there were complaints about plot holes and such in the new trilogy, it sounds like those new needs were not accommodated.
But like I said, this is all speculation. I just wanted to try and tackle the interesting point that you bring up!
Ben, what I am wondering about is the critique of the new trilogy. Maybe I didn’t pay as much attention to the critics, but I don’t really remember the majority of the complaints being around plot holes, whether or not they mirror the format of the old trilogy. I thought the complaints, by them and myself, were more revolved around them just being worse movies. Less interesting plot, worse character development, and dislike of some of the newer characters. I know you want to defend the new trilogy so I am sorry if I am annoying you, but I actually am wondering about this aspect of the critique. Thoughts?