Weaver: cautionary tale: Brash Entertainment
those who claim to be game changers: usually aren't

what's Hollywood's connections to the games industry?

Davis: less contact between gaming industry & Hollywood the better
less in common between making games/movies, less in common w/ experience game/movie (latter: more like reading book; former: more like sports)

Neurath: films as media: fundamentally different from games; interactivity; film: has stories, passive;
what makes good film doesn't make good game

Blecher: experiences are different; creative talent: different; also: reason for creation: games: want to make good game; Hollywood: licensing business: just to make extra cash
Hollywood: doesn't care about good gameplay
difference between movie games & branded games
best: Batman, Arkham Asylum: wasn't approved by movie's directors, but creators could make good game based on Batman

Davis: games that follow the movie exactly = no fun
movies: contingent on extremely detailed story plots; when player needs to make decision, you're fracturing the storytelling experience
then again: doesn't mean it's not going to be fun
can't: tie game experience to linear storytelling experience

Weaver: film people by their nature: very serial by the story they want to tell
but: story director wants to tell: director cuts; versus story studio puts out
movie v. games: movie has benefit: know where you're going next; games: interactive: depends on multitude of factorial decisions
if you're going to have a successful Hollywood game: just keep the movie out of it

Blecher: license deals w/ Activision & Electronic arts
console companies: less and less interested in making tie-in games
assets aren't available, directors = too hard to work with

w/ cross-media platforms: willingness to participate or not? in games part of the equation

Davis: made games for StarTrek license
had mediator between himself & StarTrek people: would protect from Hollywood side
other experience: worst experience in gaming career: writer from Star Trek series necessary
just a ship fighting game: but w/ voiceovers, had to use ships to talk back and forth: would have been 30 min. of 40 min. mission
there's a grammar of camera control that games have to port from films

Q: franchises: how to cater to different generations of fans by dividing worlds?

Blecher: how to leverage brand into different mediums for different people?
many versions of the Star Wars story for families, fanboys, etc., and in different mediums
key: not take story of one medium and copy it into another medium
Transformers Cybertron game: uses franchise but not same story

Neurath: Hollywood licenses: if willing to let their properties morph to work more effectively as games: will bring more success

Weaver: is Hollywood ready for social games?
not really graphic limitations or hardware
but: a lot more people making the games
how do lawyers react to fandom aspects, ability to control what happens socially, etc.?

Neurath: social network games: creating content
if you're worried about IP: could be real issue; other hand: MMOs that have been based on large brands

Weaver: pains to work on games for major franchises (Pirates of Caribbean, etc.)

Blecher: is the brand relevant? is the IP going to be interpreted properly?
social network games: 3 of top 10 iPhone games: Hasbro brands
brands will win in the casual space
if brand hits Farmville level, it will over take FV

Neurath: when it's about making games: Hollywood studios: not game companies

Blecher: 1 important A: need to let IP go, or lock it up and nobody gets excited about it
eg., Nerf
Scrabulous: needed to take action: but shutting it down would have alienated users: made alternative (though some fanboys tried to crash server)

Q/A

What happens when Hollywood takes over game brand?

Davis: some game companies don't want this; gamers would forget about it; movie goers would do what they do
ZERO movies made out of games that are good

Blecher: Wing Commander series: WC film = bad: skills don't necessarily translate
Tomb Raider: not great film, but commercially did well

Blecher: game property films: don't translate well

Weaver: skill sets: pretty different
can't necessarily train yourself to the TOOLS to exploit it

transmedia: we don't see creatives that can use skills to create these franchises, like Wachowskis, who grew up with the tools/skills

Creating brands = ?

Blecher: Littlest Pet Shop --> online world that must have right look, interacting with pets; pet-driven, no people; etc.; THEN: idea for games comes out of essence for brand

Q: will transmedia franchises that use games to tell story alienate audiences?

Weaver: people are growing up with this stuff; 5 years out: everyone will have been immersed in video

Blecher: don't go to movie to interact with it; go to sit back and be entertained

Neurath: value of brand: whether it's social network game or console game: brand entices you to try it out
also depends on game styles: casual v. hardcore
from commercial standpoint: brand creates awareness to try game

Weaver: 2.7 seconds for people to make decision online interacting with one element
but with all the noise: how does someone pay attention, or even filter everything to even see it in the first place

From the panel, seems like there's no partnerships; people want different experiences with characters, etc.; Why so proprietary, and not talking with Hollywood about better narratives + games?

Davis: have tried it before; didn't really work
people are interested in different experiences
game: NEEDS to be appropriate to the medium
however: the partnerships have NOT resulted in the appropriateness of applying brands to games well

Neurath: films start from books: good translation; some games: depends
games/interactive media: trying to look at building property that could live simultaneously across multiple media: not many people who can do it