introduCtion: AdAptAtion in A ConvergenCe environMent
13
building of transmedia worlds from an adaptation studies perspective.
Perhaps the main benefit of such an approach is that we do not need to
draw a line between transmedial clusters of connected texts that expand
and adaptations that retell, a line that risks becoming pedantic and counterintuitive in light of current production practices. To take only one example:
should we treat the various versions of the LEGO Star Wars video games as
adaptations because they allow us to reenact the plot of the various movies
somewhat “faithfully” (to use that loaded term), while disregarding that
they do so in a manner modified by their action-adventure genre, the fact
that the characters are now LEGO figures in an environment made of LEGO
blocks, and that they poke fun at the movies through slapstick elements?
These alterations essentially transform the genre of a movie like Star Wars
from epic adventure to comic farce. If we focus exclusively on the medial
transposition of plot, character, and setting, we would have to include the
LEGO Star Wars games as adaptations on the basis of their rather direct
transfer of main points of the story and characters – and this certainly
makes sense. However, following the same narrow definition, we would
have to exclude the older video games Dark Forces (1995) or Jedi Knight:
Dark Forces II (1997), which are much closer to the original trilogy in terms
of atmosphere, genre, and representation of the fictional universe, because
their plot and characters are not part of any of the films. If we turn to Linda
Hutcheon’s definition of adaptation (or Julie Sanders’ rather similar one),
we can also find the basis for a wider definition: both games transpose “a
recognizable other work,” they involve “a creative and an interpretive act of
appropriating/salvaging,” and “an extended intertextual engagement with
the adapted work.” 15 They therefore qualify as adaptations, as do many fan
works which similarly expand the hyperdiegesis.
As this example shows, boundaries between adaptations and franchise
expansions are blurry and bound to become artificial or even counterintuitive and counterproductive in cases in which different instantiations of a
fictional franchise draw on the same storyworld. They furthermore, at least
implicitly, exclude most fan creations, thereby reintroducing a cultural
hierarchy through the back door. Rather than stick to a preconceived notion
of transposition versus expansion (which, moreover, ignores that every
adaptation necessarily expands the story it adapts), we should instead ask
ourselves why we look at text A, which directly identifies a novel or film
as a primary source text, but not at text B, which is as clearly connected
to that film, novel, or comic, being linked textually and paratextually to
15 Hutcheon, Theory, 8. Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (London: Routledge, 2006).
13
building of transmedia worlds from an adaptation studies perspective.
Perhaps the main benefit of such an approach is that we do not need to
draw a line between transmedial clusters of connected texts that expand
and adaptations that retell, a line that risks becoming pedantic and counterintuitive in light of current production practices. To take only one example:
should we treat the various versions of the LEGO Star Wars video games as
adaptations because they allow us to reenact the plot of the various movies
somewhat “faithfully” (to use that loaded term), while disregarding that
they do so in a manner modified by their action-adventure genre, the fact
that the characters are now LEGO figures in an environment made of LEGO
blocks, and that they poke fun at the movies through slapstick elements?
These alterations essentially transform the genre of a movie like Star Wars
from epic adventure to comic farce. If we focus exclusively on the medial
transposition of plot, character, and setting, we would have to include the
LEGO Star Wars games as adaptations on the basis of their rather direct
transfer of main points of the story and characters – and this certainly
makes sense. However, following the same narrow definition, we would
have to exclude the older video games Dark Forces (1995) or Jedi Knight:
Dark Forces II (1997), which are much closer to the original trilogy in terms
of atmosphere, genre, and representation of the fictional universe, because
their plot and characters are not part of any of the films. If we turn to Linda
Hutcheon’s definition of adaptation (or Julie Sanders’ rather similar one),
we can also find the basis for a wider definition: both games transpose “a
recognizable other work,” they involve “a creative and an interpretive act of
appropriating/salvaging,” and “an extended intertextual engagement with
the adapted work.” 15 They therefore qualify as adaptations, as do many fan
works which similarly expand the hyperdiegesis.
As this example shows, boundaries between adaptations and franchise
expansions are blurry and bound to become artificial or even counterintuitive and counterproductive in cases in which different instantiations of a
fictional franchise draw on the same storyworld. They furthermore, at least
implicitly, exclude most fan creations, thereby reintroducing a cultural
hierarchy through the back door. Rather than stick to a preconceived notion
of transposition versus expansion (which, moreover, ignores that every
adaptation necessarily expands the story it adapts), we should instead ask
ourselves why we look at text A, which directly identifies a novel or film
as a primary source text, but not at text B, which is as clearly connected
to that film, novel, or comic, being linked textually and paratextually to
15 Hutcheon, Theory, 8. Julie Sanders, Adaptation and Appropriation (London: Routledge, 2006).