Transmedia still not getting it… It is not about varying platforms. It is about one with many parts and the plumbing that connects them. Think like an actor… action via reaction.

‘Experts’ preaching stories aren’t 1000% better/more immersive with singular patterned focus & flow, or how non-purposeful transition & disruption doesn’t hurt flow= simply way off.   Not talking about purposeful disruption/transition between platform… but the choice of disruption/platform architecture has as much to do with how the channel effects message ..thus is the message as the words, acting, cinematography, audio, emotion etc.  Disruption if it is chosen should enhance 4th wall when possible. Not degrade it (which is what changing platform does 99% of the time).  Pick and design platform transition as if you were writing, performing, directing a scene.  The new storycube (vs. storyline) architecture of media needs to be designed as if audience were actors… movement or disruption needs to be designed for action via reaction.

A book, a series, etc.  are designed that chapters may be self contained but it is the same platform architecture when you return.  Now we have platform architecture changing between and within chapters… the story architecture and flow is more important than it ever was to hold the story between the transitions.  The real world activity and action of the audience has to be built into the ethos, pathos and logos of the script and production…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s