Hello everyone. I'm Julie Grossman and on behalf of my co-organizers, Tom leech, Convair service, and Ian Smith. I want to welcome you to the second iteration of this symposium, which we've called To be continued defining, producing, performing, consuming and theorizing cereals and adaptations. Before saying anything further, I want to offer a special thank you to our tech expert at University of Delaware, Kelly O'Rourke, who for last year's event and again for this year's symposium, has been such a crucial and valued advisor as we worked out the details of the Zoom platform registration and a script for today and tomorrow's events. Thank you, Kelly. I also want to thank Madeline Hunter for her extraordinary health promoting this event on social media. As the title of TV continued suggests this project was developed in response to our observation that the fields of adaptation and seriality we're working on related and parallel tracks without always conversing with one another. Following the development of two book series, Edinburgh university presses, screen seriality and Palgrave studies and adaptation and visual culture on who's editorial boards many of you serve and for which some of you have published volumes. We sought to establish a forum in which the insights and common interests of seriality and adaptation scholars might be shared and discussed more explicitly. Our aim is to provide a setting for these conversations and perhaps most important to promote their continuing beyond these two days. If you haven't already done so please check out the projects webpage where you can find information about this year's symposium, speakers, but also last year's as well, including videos of all of the presentations on the panels last September. In due time, videos documenting today's and tomorrow's talks will appear on that side as well. The link to the project page will be in the chat momentarily. You should feel free to contact me or any of the co-organizers if you have any questions you want to follow up on. We began to with our first session, genre one to be followed at noon Eastern US time by the representation panel chaired by Tom leech. Tomorrow at the same time, we will continue with a critical fandom panel chaired by E and Robert Smith, followed by a second session on genre chaired by Convair vis. We've organized the four panels with the expectation that ideas, issues, insights, and questions will overlap over the course of the sessions. So we hope you're able to participate across the two days time and busy schedules permitting of course, in the interests of allowing for ample Q&A and discussion, we've asked our presenters to limit their talks to 7 min. Feel free to post comments and questions in the chat. We'll be tracking the chat. And when we're finished with the talks, I'll encourage people to use the hand raise function to ask questions or make comments. That said, thank you all for being here and for being part of this project. I'm very pleased to introduce our first speaker, Colleen Kennedy car pot from Bill Kent University. And her paper is called genre and unused Varda as companion films. Colleen. Thank you, Julie, and thanks again while I share my screen to you and to Tom, Ian and con for organizing this sequel to the original To be continued, which was really quite an event. So it may the series indeed be ongoing. I'm delighted to be here. I'm honored to be opening the first panel devoted to genre. I will be talking about how genre and intertextuality come together in the work of the celebrated filmmaker and visual artists on yes Varga who died in 2019. This is part of a larger project I'm undertaking on Varda and it's been fascinating to look at how intertextual connections have made her work stand out. And so that's what I'm going to be presenting today. Now, I am hoping very much that Varda herself requires no further introduction. But a key element of her work is that Varda is not a genre film maker in the usual or maybe let's say commercial sense. She pulls from a number of genres throughout her career, but arguably her most daring genre blending involves combining documentary with fiction, which is particularly pronounced in her late autobiographical works, such as the beaches around yes. What marks not only these hybrid autobiographies, but Vd is entire film. Ogg refi is how she reflects the self through film, especially the changing self. The fixation on time is one of our two signatures. As a filmmaker, she would often cite her own past work in newer films. And the fact that she would also incorporate autobiography into this work makes Varda a stellar example of self adaptation and its richest sense. Not only does she reconsider and re-frame her own textual production, but she also interpolates the ever evolving self that navigates these shifting contexts. What I'm proposing today is a brief taxonomy of Vardy and intertextuality that elucidates the relationships that emerge between her films. Provisionally, I'm calling these categories extensions, revisits and companions. And the rest of my presentation will show examples of each of these. And extension is an offshoot of another existing film, generally a short made as a side project to a feature. Extensions are marked by a shared cast and or setting, but not necessarily a change in genre. Pleasure of love and Iran as an extension of her feminists quasi musical, once things the other doesn't and the short film can be understood as an embellished outtake from the feature narrative. It can also stand alone though, but it's still makes the most sense as an inter-text to one sings, but not every extension resembles its related feature, the short film sets p has pre-installed DBA Suzy up. And this is basically pulling from real estate jargon in French. It's really hard to translate. The chairs. Some cast members with vagabond, just one of her best-known and most frequently taught films. However, unlike the grim naturalism of the feature film, this extension is unabashedly experimental and aesthetic, as well as form showing a nightmarish fantasy of oppressive domesticity that contrasts with the precarious freedom of the road narrative in vagabond. The next category is the revisit, which is a film that develops an earlier work through direct reference to and remediation of that earlier work. Chronology is crucial, but seriality isn't. The terminology is really tricky with this category because revision is not really quite right. The point is not to change, to try to improve on the existing work. Recycling is also not quite right, though. It does have a nice connotation of sustainability that resonates with themes of her later documentaries. But what is perhaps most startling is how VD is revisits are resolutely anti mystyle GIC. The point is never to recreate what came before, nor to revel in it and or revert to it. But instead to innovate with or through an existing idea to create something new. You lease or Ulysses is a prime example of the revisit in part because nearly 30 years have elapsed between the photograph on the left, which you can see on your screen. The film that had inspired, and yes, the goat on the right is actually eating a copy of that photograph. The documentary does off play or two years later takes the term revisit even more literally, showing Varda returning to people in places she had filmed in the year 2000 for her documentary, The Gleaners and I, which is another very frequently taught film of hers. Bart is final film, Varda on yes, can also be understood as a sweeping revisit of her life's work as it touches on a lot of her films and fairly thoroughly remediates several of her multimedia installations. The final category of already and intertextuality is the companion film which I promised to talk about today. And this most clearly relies on diverging genres. Para, textually, she pairs companion films together in her box set on yes Varda slanted column, which is not the Criterion Collection, but the one that came up through her own companies and they tamales a number of years ago. And this suggests an overt invitation to consider them as closely related inter texts. We do gain useful perspective and viewing them in this way, namely the biographical perspective, which of course inevitably bleeds into an 0 terrorist one. We see VAR does life manifesting through her work in different ways depending on the affordances of each genre she engages. Companion films share the same images, even the exact same shots at various points. So this slide here shows the end of mirror, mirror on the bottom right, which is another really difficult title to translate unfortunately. And it features the same neural is the opening credits of documenta, which you see on the left. The same screaming woman that we see in mu, is also in the opening sequence of dokie motto, but framed in a way that emphasizes the isolation of emotional turmoil, which is of course the theme of the film. Another companion film is here. And in the donkey portrait, Jane v. By v, the central subject Jeanne Burke and talks to Varda about the genesis of the story she wrote that forms the basis of the narrative feature come from master. The story is about a middle aged woman with two daughters who falls in love with a teenage boy played in the film by VD, his own son Matsuda mean. Many shots from Kung Fu master appeared towards the end of gene b and the donkey portrait also includes a rather detailed discussion between Brooklyn and Varda about making a film based on broken stories. It's an endless loop here. As we see in the opening credits, this is exactly what ended up happening. So in conclusion, very quickly, extensions, revisits and companion films all underscore how self adaptation is really the key to guardian intertextuality of all kinds. The effects of time that we see in part as films are as varied as the people that she shows. And the story is that she tells what VD is. Intertextual approach is most clearly underscore, is the human capacity for adaptation in the face of relentless change. Thanks very much. Pass it back to you, Julie. Thank you. Calling. That was wonderful. So our next speaker is Barbara Klinger from Indiana University, Bloomington. And her title is Hollywood classics, adapting old films to new media platforms. Barley rewrite. Yes. Now we come to everyone. I'm so happy to be here and delighted to see everyone. And very grateful that the organizers are following up their project last year with another. Edition of it this year, it's really wonderful project and I'm excited to be part of it. Classical films are not usually thought of as a genre, but here I would like to consider them as a category of films that share the studio systems narrative and stylistic features along with the historical period. If classic rock is a musical genre, we can conceive of classical cinema as a collection of similar films with a common temporal signature. Like classic rock, these films heyday as well in the past. Like classic rock songs, many film oldies have circulated well beyond their heyday, achieving an endurance presence and media culture. The vintage of these films as central to my comments today, as is my position that adaptation studies is uniquely suited to grasping the terms of their travel across time. How to film survived vast changes in the film industry, media technologies, movie going, and culture to remain in the public eye. What are the material and historical forces behind the phenomenon of textual endurance? How does adaptation studies offer the conceptual framework and tools necessary for understanding it? Such questions matter to the field because historians have focused on a film Sin chronic life, its original production, exhibition, and reception, leaving its diachronic life and circulation over time under studied. Yet is Charles Akron notes, film texts grow old elsewhere through exhibition venues that are major industry sectors in their own right. Classical Hollywood films have been rereleased from the 1930s to the present through radio adaptations, TV reruns, repertory house reissues and video additions from VHS to streaming. Making exhibition venues and the forms films assume on them Central. But thinking about textual longevity, the changes occurring in these contexts are wide ranging. Effecting of films, physical materiality, narrative style, genre, and meaning. By understanding the nature of these changes, we can comprehend the phenomenon of re-release. The only dimensional films existence capable of sustaining or marginalizing its claim on public attention over time, we released provides the conditions necessary for films to become memorable or be forgotten, to rise or fall in canonical rank, to find or lose audiences to persistent or disappeared from the mediascape. While adaptation scholars do not typically regard exhibition or the rereleased form itself as objects of study. Developments in the field make the relevance less surprising. Okay? Less surprising, okay? Linda Hutcheon employs a Darwinian perspective to define adaptation as a modification of a text that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment. Studying exhibition and the reissue as adaptive forces shows the transformations necessary for textual survival in which films become fit for existence on a succession of exhibition platforms. Here are the historical movement of films is embodied in the mutations they experienced over time. Whether through the scratchy TV rerun, pristine porque, a remastered print. Additionally. Alrighty. Simone Murray proposes a quote, materializing Adaptation Theory and her work on book to film adaptations. And as you can see from the slide, I'll read part of it. But she envisions texts as material objects produced not just by authors, but also by institutions, agents and material forces from book publishers to movie makers. Such forces are engaged in a complex literary economy that governs the production and dissemination of books while cultivating readers and viewers. By considering the text as a material entity operated on by invested parties. Adaptation studies challenge the idea of it's discrete boundaries and self-enclosed universe. Broadening the scope of elements in both in the process. Murray emphasizes media production but exhibition. The site between the site of interface between media industries, audiences and history is central to regarding Texas material objects acted on by a circuit of forces, forms of reissue that films experiences they circulate also deserve close attention and adaptation studies where you should represent versions of films that assumed the characteristics of their host environment. For media platforms they traverse to the discursive formations they enter, reuse yourself to be reworked materially and semiotically, to exist on new platforms and be legible to fresh audiences. This process generates iterations of older films, like their video additions, that belong among textual extensions, commonly recognized and adaptation studies like book to film adaptations. Thus making these iterations part of a larger catalog of textual read doings. If as James narrow more contents, the concept of adaptation must be joined with the study of recycling, remaking, and every other form of retailing in the age of mechanical reproduction and electronic communication. Placing reissues into this mix springs adaptation closer to being such a general theory of repetition. Film re-issue such represent a type of remaking that joins other kinds of textual iteration and illuminating a mass culture dedicated to the serial repetition, Viral travel of its artifacts. A brief example. The industry regards Casablanca as an evergreen because of its extraordinary record of successful rereleased over time through exhibition venues. Overtime, the film has experienced multiple shifts in its identity. Dimension two and post-war US repertory houses, it became a cult film, shown in increasingly dilapidated prints, too enthusiastic and vocal audiences, who deified its star, Humphrey Bogart, as the epitome of rebellious masculine cool in accord with counter-cultural resistance to the establishment at the time. By the 1980s, it had achieved a different cult identity on video as a Valentine's Day film. The intimacy of video as a home entertainment medium, coupled with the conservative turn in US politics and the backlash against second-wave feminism, it engendered, identified Casablanca as a romance well suited for women's traditional pre feminist romantic fantasies. Differences in exhibition platforms, historical era of arrows and other variables crafted distinctly different senses of the film, altering its physical presentation, meanings, and audiences, without addressing the shape-shifting that occurs across platforms. That is the classical Hollywood film successive adaptation by its fellow media in different social settings. It's history is incomplete, it's intimate place and audiences lives over time difficult to fathom. Adaptation studies has the potential to identify how old these have been transformed as they circulate across arrows. Allowing us to gain a more precise and robust understanding of this most significant dimension of their existence. Thank you. Thank you, Barb. That was wonderful. Okay. Our next speaker is Suzanne color From the University of constants. And her title is halting and catching fire and halting and catching fire. Serializing period and contemporary TV drama. Susanna. Yes, Thank you. Hello everyone. I'm just very briefly going to say how happy I am to Pi vi part of this second season, so to speak, of, to be continued. And particularly of this first panel of genre to hear about all your work and discuss. So thank you to the organizers and to Julie in particular for chairing. Before I move on to what I actually want to tell you. So I will give you a glimpse into my research on seriality and the genre of historical fiction. More precisely, I've been looking at long-form original television series, which has said in the past to consider how they establish and serially evolve a narrative that is identifiably and consciously representing a historical period different from what we perceive as our present, which are doing so without adapting a literary texts, which is in fact a definition still often found when looking at the term period or costume drama. So I've been interested in identifying series which re-frame established reductive notions of history in the singular and with a capital H history. As well as to call Jerome DeGroot, critique, conceptualize, engage with, and reject the processes of representation and narratives of that history. Doing so via the affordances of contemporary serial storytelling on TV, including practices of repetition with variation and narrative accumulation. These historical fictions do not work against their own comprehensibility by way of deconstruction and dissolution of narratives cohesion and historical meaning. Instead, they retain narrative coherence and a level of watch ability that is essential for their own continued existence in a popular commercial medium. Generically and tone on the hybrid, they reflect on issues of time and temporality. In a more subtle way than we might expect from narratives that we call self-conscious and reflexive, or maybe ironic, made possible by long-form storytelling. It's vast textual memory and the high engagement level of dedicated and attentive viewers, as described by Jason Mattel and others. These new historical fictions play with deliberate, often subtle anachronism or other anachronistic and ambiguity to disrupt definitive narrative of passengers. They effectively complicate the notion of accurate historical re presentation, as well as entirely presences, historical fictions, which disregard passiveness as merely an allegory for the present. In doing so, new historical series open a space for more inquisitive doubt for complex interrogations of time and temporalities. Beyond strictly linear or teleological essentialism. The term Neil historical itself, used primarily in studies of the novel so far, indicates itself awareness of being inherently contradictory, even somewhat paradoxical, and constantly negotiating the relation of the old and the new, the past and the present, the established, and the novel. As such, it is evidently also a comment on, or maybe even a correction of the term historical fiction itself. So I'll very briefly give you an example for this NEO historical mode in the genre of period drama. And that is a series that many of you may in fact not have heard of. I'm not quite sure, or may not think of as historical fiction as it is set in the quiet reasons, mid 1980s to mid 1990s. And that is AMCs halt and catch fire. Its characters are deeply involved in the expedition of technological progress from the personal computer and early forms of social media to gaming and antivirus softwares. They dream and work towards a future which they consider to be superior to their present. And they serially, ambiguously fail at bringing about such a future. Halls and catch fire is complicated and complex. Perpetually re-imagined past visions of the future. Rather retro future sensibility oscillate between utopian dreaming, dystopian dreading, and the constant threat of professional, personal and existential failure that is perhaps preclusive of such futures. The series constructs a storyworld infused with all the markers of retro futurism. Yet without being a science fiction itself, meaning the characters imagined possible futures, both ultimately realized and entirely effective. They do not exist in a world where these alternative futures or futurity is, I should say, have actually come to exist them. In doing so, hot and catch fire, I'm arguing focuses on the ambiguous process of envisioning the future itself, not the eventual outcome of that process. And therefore draws it's evolving narrative potency you from, I'm, from centering the notion that quoting angina because Alec, each present was once unimagined future. Heart and catch fire effectively destabilizes notions of time, temporality and speaking of genre than period ended ambivalent, the narrative advisors, the past as a series of failures instead of linear progress. Thank you very much. That's great. Thank you so much, Susan. Our next speaker is Laura me from the University of Hartford. Sure. And her title is, say his name, re animating the antagonist in the new horror movie Quill. Thank you very much. Hopefully everybody can see my screen. Okay. Thank you so much to the organizers and to my fellow speakers. It's lovely to be here and to be part of this not remotely intimidating lineup, I want to talk about the recall horror film and television multiplicities to use Khan and Palmer's term. Like the remakes, reboots, sequel, prequel have dominated horror production in recent decades and demonstrates ongoing attempts to re-invent, experiment, address contemporary cultural concerns, appeal to audiences and to ensure the genres survival. Very recent franchise horror favors the legacy sequel or the legacy cool. The recall, whichever you want to use, which is a serial mode akin to a mix of remake or reboot. And sacral. Recalls, as Handling explained here by Mindy from scream written narratives to a point immediately following an original film. Overwriting the narrative development of series sequels and prequels to develop a new story. Simultaneously, they capitalize upon iconography and mythology expanded over decades by the very franchise entries which they negate. As Kathleen look suggests, three calls are both nostalgia driven and seriality focused, drawing from franchise history to offer retro appeal through familiarity while securing the commercial viability and thus the continuation of a particular series. Recent recall interests to some of the genres. Biggest franchises include Halloween in 2018, candy man in 2021, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and scream this year, all you'll notice titled after their original titles. Strategy adopted by horror equals is the revival of their antagonists. These are iconic franchise bogey man and the para, textual materials surrounding these films, well as the texts themselves rely on nostalgia for these original iterations. They reappropriate key iconographic features. Most obviously this is costumes and weapons, whichever apparent in the posters here. The slash achilles with their mosques, their tools, their methods are recognizable. Pop culture, bad guys. I think these shadowy obscured faces or backs of heads are not intended to appeals solely to horror fans. The taglines play on the return of the killers or their familiarity. They're a bit difficult to see here, but screams posted tells us it's always someone you know. Chainsaws promotion warns us that the face of madness returns can demands is a direct appeal to summon the eponymous bill them by name. Michael Myers gets nothing at all because his mask alone is recognizable, as I've suggested in the 2000s, reboots rather than replacing or re-inventing these texts, have to instead recall, repeat, refine in order to function. The recall must take its claim as a significant franchise entry in its own right. But at the same time, it relies on audience's familiarity with these killers and the legacies honed over decades of franchise law and pop culture celebration. As Adam Okay, Nikki argues, of Halloween 2018, the retroactive continuity of the horror recall has to tow a fine line between respect and reinvention. Vary in their approaches to reanimate their villains. In Halloween and Texas Chainsaw, they return older and meaner than ever to revive long dead battles with original opponents who take their place alongside new protagonist. Halloween is lent some star power and franchise fan appeal through the casting of Jamie Lee Curtis, seen here in this fantastic promo shot as Laurie strode, who of course is Carol Clover, key, final girl, and in the franchise law, Michael's sister. This familial connection is it raised in the repo and Laurie is instead re-framed as a traumatized survivalist, practicing her skills for Michael's inevitable return. And this ultimately reinstate same as the near supernatural monster of carpenters original film in Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Sally hard to stay who survived leather face and 73 returns as a Texas sheriff. Leather face dispatches her quite quickly. Spoiler alert. The original reappropriation of scenes of the original film, a Hair played out in this film on DVD as part of a sensational true crime documentary. And they serve as intertextual connection and promotion, as well as reaffirming leather face as a menacing presence in rural Texas. Later, the killer is live-streamed, effectively re-framing him as the star of his own piece. The slasher villains are resurrected in new incarnations with fresh cultural commentary. The killers of scream or ironic avatars for contemporary toxic fandom that furious at the latest films in the stab series, which is the diegetic film within the film equivalent of the screen franchise itself. With no quote unquote, real life murders for stabs, sequels and reboots to draw from over the previous decade. The killers take matters into their own hands to bring back and original cost and inject new life into the franchise via a recall, this is obviously a typically Meta textual approach for the Scream films and the ghost face killer. Finally, then the economists candy man becomes a folkloric figure representing the historical trauma of racism. 990s to original has been criticised by Robin R means Coleman for being one of many blacks in horror as opposed to black horror films made by white film makers which traded on old stereotypes of black villains. Candy man is of ghostly. I'm just gonna move this in case people don't see the quotes. There we go. Candy man is a ghostly descendant of a slave, murdered for his relationship with a wealthy white woman, who becomes a folkloric figure in the Chicago projects, summoned by saying his name five times in a mirror, needs a cost is recall positions candy Madison legend, renewed and reanimate it. Via the souls of other murdered black men throughout generations. In this way then the new film and the character himself offer a corrective to the folks of the original and its white savior narrative. Centering Black Voices in both its narrative and creation and connecting the film to contemporary social concerns by encouraging or cautioning against characters and viewers to say his name seen in promotional materials like this poster as well as threaded throughout the script. One offering new paths and purposes for their villains. This balance between fresh and familiar is essential to the success of all franchise entries. The recall strategies are not new. Films like Bates Motel and Halloween H2O and others were doing this decades ago. Neither are they unique to this particular serial mode. So when analyzed by the central figure of its antagonists, the recall can be seen as yet another label applied to contemporary adaptive seriality, like reboot, remake or preschool, in an attempt to categorize these overlapping intertextual and fluids serial forms. We've done. Thank you. Thank you so much, Laura. That was wonderful. Okay. So next we have Wilshire from Syracuse University and his title is seriality and studio branding and the universal classic monster movies. Well, okay, Can can you hear me okay? Yeah, great. Great. Thanks, Julie. And thanks also for inviting me to participate in this really exciting panel and for you Tom, EN and con for organizing the whole symposium. I'm really thrilled to be part of it given the short time frame for each of our papers and the very provisional stage of my new project. This paper does not seek to present a new fully formed argument about the Universal monster movies so much as to set a working research agenda for understanding their unique relationship to film genre and seriality. In the absence of conclusions, I hope to pose a series of questions to contribute to the discussion that will follow. After the commercial disappointment and critical lambasting of the mummy 2017, Universal Pictures abandoned plans for resurrecting it's old monster movies with a series that exists in a shared storyworld similar to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and gave it so-called Dark Universe, a premature burial, beginning with the Invisible Man, however, and that's the 2020 film. The studio has forged ahead with standalone films featuring iconic monster characters. The horror comedy Ren Field starring Nicholas Cage as Count Dracula, the master of the title character is scheduled for release in 2023. Well, I science-fiction Western re-imagining of Dracula in 1931 is in development with writer, director, producer Chloe's out. One way we can understand the long afterlives of these pre-sold properties in terms of the economics of Hollywood genres, universal created a brand identity in the studio system with the horror film, a newly recognized production category in the early 1930s. That as Kyle Edwards has argued, became synonymous with the studio through its corporate strategy at the time. Yeah, what would become the universal classic monsters was not a genre in itself, but existed within horror of the 1930s and 1940s as a cycle. Amanda and Klein defines a film cycle as a series of films associated with each other through shared images, characters, settings, plots, or themes, unquote. And she explains that, quote, The formation and longevity of film cycles are a direct result of their immediate financial viability, as well as the public discourses circulating around them, including film reviews, director interviews, studio issued press kits, movie posteriors, theatrical trailers, and media coverage, unquote. The Monster Cycle at universal began with the highly successful Dracula and Frankenstein in 1931, and continued with films such as The Mummy 1932 and the Invisible Man 1933. Before expanding with the addition of sequels such as the Bride of Frankenstein 1935, and Dracula, his daughter in 1936. The introduction of new monsters and films such as The Wolf Man, 1941. The intersection of previously distinct storylines in crossover films such as Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man, 1943, house if Frankenstein 1944 and house of Dracula in 1945. Other studios were quick to capitalize on the popularity of screen monsters. And among the films that filled out the cycle where Paramount, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and the island of lost souls, both 1932. Warner's Dr. X and the 1932 and the mystery of the wax museum 1933, MDMs, mark of the vampire in 1935 or teaming Dracula, director Tod Browning's star bell of gauzy. Rko is cat people in 1942 and 20th Century Fox is the undying monster in 1942, had the cycle ended in the studio era, like say Warner is dead and Kid films, 1937, 1939. And its imitators, universals, monster movies would still be a historical interests as an example of standard studio practice and aesthetic interests as a source of foundational films in a genre. E.g. james Whale's original Frankenstein. And indeed, scholars have paid heed to these films in both contexts. However, the cancellation of the dark universe raises the specter of the franchise that haunts this particular cycle. Drawing attention to a lacuna in existing scholarship. On the one hand, as Derek Johnson points out, quote, the language of franchising would not become, would not come to be deployed and even retail industries until 1959, despite the pre-existence of the economic practices and relationships that would come to be known as franchising, unquote, to call any of the properties from universals Monster Cycle a franchise then would be to invoke the discourse of a far more recent phenomenon. They can work to reframe historical practice on quote and quote to read back onto it an anachronistic cultural logic, unquote. On the other hand, as William Proctor contents quote, universal pioneered the idea that the film series could work more like cereals by experimenting with trans fictional storytelling unquotes. And began building horror worlds by utilizing continuity logics adopted and adapted from serial entertainments of the time, unquote, including serial fiction, film and radio serials and comic strips. For this reason, proctor refers to universals monster movies. The mid 1930s to the mid 1940s, the period dominated by sequels and crossover storylines as the franchise cycle bracketing proctors primary concerns with the narrative continuity of franchise seriality, ie how quote, various sequels operate diagrammatically through trans fictional storytelling, unquote. There's further research to be done on the status of the Universal monster movies as what I'm calling a pre franchise. A cycle of films formed by public discourses circulating around them, unquote, as per client's definition, that reflect the preexisting economic practices and relationships that would come to be known as franchising unquote, to which Johnson refers. How did universals licensing of its monster properties before and after 1959 in model kits, toys, board games, et cetera, anticipate the commercial marketplace of tie-in merchandising associated with high concept Hollywood blockbusters after the 1970s and 1980s. How did parody the Abbott and Costello Meet the monsters films e.g. and recycling theatrical reissues, syndicated television broadcasts on shock theater, home video releases under the banner of the Universal Classic Monsters help create a monster cannon and promote its visibility. How have official theme park attractions remake, such as the mummy from 1999. Spin-offs such as the Scorpion King, preserve the legacy of the universal classic monsters while re-branding old properties for younger audiences. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Well, that was wonderful. Okay, So Shelly stamp is our next speaker. Shelley is from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and her title is radio drama, female audiences and the dissemination of new art taste. Shelley. Thanks Julie. What I'm going to present today as part of a larger study of female audiences and film the War in the 1940s and early fifties. And I'm going to share some pretty preliminary thoughts on how we might trace that audience through the intermediary landscape of radio drama. So James nevermore has argued that radio dramas were crucial to what he calls the dissemination of new art taste in the forties and early fifties. Many radio scholars have proven this point, arguing that radio techniques like first-person narration, prepped audiences for NOR is use a voice-over that the explosion of thrillers on the radio in the early forties preceded the development of thumb war on screen. If radio was crucial to the dissemination of your taste in both form and content than it was women as radios chief listeners who were at its heart. And I want to tease out these connections a little further by tracing the radio adaptation of one of the very earliest films in the Anwar cycle, Phantom Lady, released in January of 1944. Phantom Lady was heralded as well that the burst of Navarre titles that year, Double Indemnity would be released in April, followed by Laura and the woman in the window in November. Murder my sweet. In December, with 11 million men serving overseas audiences who saw these early in wars were likely overwhelmingly female. One estimate suggests that two-thirds of all movie patrons during the war years were women. Not surprisingly then phantom ladies marketing campaign made a strong appeal to female movie goers. Producer John Harrison featured strongly in the film simplicity, with particular attention paid to her quote, unquote, unladylike taste in crime fiction, a taste of films viewers were presumed to share. Much of the film's visual marketing emphasize the projects literary roots as well. A new edition of the 1942 novel was published to coincide with the film's release, including Scenes from the film reproduced on the back cover, published by Tower books in a lower cost 49 standard edition. It would've sold in drugstores, bus depots and newsstands, and would have attracted a considerable readership amongst working class and lower middle-class female mystery fans. A radio adaptation of Phantom Lady was broadcast on Lux radio theater, among the most popular evening dramas on the air in March of 1940, 42 months after the films initial premier. But while it was still in general release, as Barbara Klinger has argued, radio dramas were an essential element of Hollywood's promotional arm doing during these years and crucial to a film's continued visibility. More importantly, cleaner emphasizes that radial facilitated the film industries reach into the domestic sphere. Women were the primary audiences for radio during these years, especially during daytime programming, of course. But the majority of women listened to radio in the evenings. Programs like Lux radio theater broadcast Monday evenings on CVS, catered explicitly to female listeners, both through the general sponsor, Lux soap, and through specific afield appeals to female listeners in the programming. Because radio dramas were not always broadcast at the time of the films first run in any given community. Listeners might have heard the Phantom Lady broadcast before they saw the film, After they saw the film, or perhaps both. The cross-promotion of the film across novel film and radio increased opportunities for consumers to digest the material in different formats, of course, multiplied the ways they might have engaged with that material and increased opportunities for them to consume it. Moreover, because successful radio dramas were invariably re-broadcast and or re-recorded with different casts over a period of several years. Listeners often heard radio traumatization alongside a broad range of material. For instance, in the weeks before Phantom Lady was first broadcast on Lux radio theater, regular listeners would have heard rebroadcast Video plays of older films, including Casa Blanca, the letter, and shadow of a doubt. Know those titles would be strictly considered from the wire, of course. But the dark tone of each story and the centrality of strong-willed women at the heart of these narratives would have furnished key context for an early newer like Phantom Lady, one with particular appeal to female listeners. In the weeks following the Phantom Lady broadcast, Lux radio theater featured adaptations of several Gothic melodramas, including Jane Eyre, suspicion, and dark waters. Programming that would have suggested a continuity between war and Gothic melodrama genre more traditionally marketed to women. Introducing the Lux radio theater adaptation, host sessile B. Demille told listeners that the young lady in the play turns out to be a very competent detective. Noting how very few feminine sleuths populated crime and mystery fiction. The program sponsor, Lux soap, he advised, nonetheless considered the ladies of America sluice of the first-order because he said all of them at one time or another, have tried to solve a very elusive mystery, the mystery of a lovely complexion. The meals remarks seem at first to be rather ham fist and attempt to align femininity with domesticity and beauty culture to walk back the independence, ingenuity, and skill of a feminine sleuth like phantom ladies Kansas, Richmond, by associating her with mundane tasks like shopping for household goods or maintaining one's complexion. But we might also think of it in the reverse, that is by drawing an overt parallel between phantom ladies, very competent detective and radio listeners at home to meals. Introduction encouraged women to think of themselves in that role, to imagine themselves as young women forced into a position where they would need to navigate the urban underworld, solve a crime free and innocently accused colleague. The radio adaptation of Phantom Lady not only promoted the film to the programs female listeners than it brought the drama into their homes and invited them to see the story as a roadmap, a template, a space to imagine another life. Thank you. Great, Thank you so much Shelley. Our final speaker is Cheryl Vint from the University of California, Riverside. And Shelley's title is reboot and reinvention seriality across decades via Star Trek. Cheryl. Hi, thank you so much. And first, I'm very glad to be here. Thank you so much for inviting me. I deeply apologize to my fellow panelists and to the organizers that I was about 5 min late because somehow I had the wrong time difference in my calendar. I'm so sorry for that. I'm glad I made it in time. And there's gonna be a lot of echoes in what I have to say here today with a lot of the earlier presentations which I listened to with great interests. So I'm interested in this question of how the reboot is both a franchise strategy and economic strategy for the industry, but also ways in which it's, it's able to do something different narratively in the world space. I guess I need to turn this into a slideshow, don't die, I apologize. Zoom window is hiding all my controls from me. There we are. So what I'm interested in is this question that I'm going to explore through Star Trek. But at the end I'm going to talk about a couple of other TV series. And I'm predominantly focused on the television space here. But I do think as many of the previous presentations have suggested, this is really a strategy that has to do with the question of IP and ways in which, especially now that we're in a multi-platform media world, that entities such as universal are paramount or Disney, whoever they are, seeking ways to take the IP they already own and make it connect with new audiences. And what I'm interested in is thinking through the ways in which, well, there are some limitations with that. In terms of the way the economics are driving the industry, there is nonetheless a space for more innovative storytelling within the world. Actually, we were reflects back on these earlier titles and helps the, the new properties themselves reflect on the cultural effects of previous texts. And I think the candy man film that came up in a previous presentation is a really good example of that. Here are all the Star Trek series. For those of you who are not immersed in the world of Star Trek, there's also two animated series, which I didn't list here because I am focusing on the live action ones. And it's probably famous two people at least it's famous within science-fiction circles. The original series was almost Council. There was a fan letter-writing campaign that saved it. Then Star Trek really became the poster child of the first space age, the next-generation rebooting that in the 1880s. And then there was a bridge between that original series and the first, the next-generation series through a number of films. Then through the eighties into the early 2000s, there was always a Star Trek on the end, on the error. Again, there's a gap between enterprise and discovery, but there were some films in that space. And so Star Trek is whatever those properties that is continually reinventing itself to new circumstances. And the argument that I want to make about what it's doing really has to do with the kind of liberal humanism that was at the root of Gene Roddenberry vision when he invented this. So the original series particularly and some of the earlier series, next-generation Deep Space nine. There's a strong critique of the inherent whiteness. A kind of presumption of liberalism is a kind of cultural imperialism. So Star Trek famously supposed to not interfere and other cultures, but they're continually interfering in other cultures and sort of foregrounding the centrosome of human values. And this has been critiqued by scholarship. And what I'm going to suggest is that it's also critiqued by these more recent post 2017 series. That through the history of Star Trek, we can kinda see different ideals of US culture in terms of the captain that's being foregrounded. They're so Kirk is obviously the frontier. Picard is a kind of professionalism that's taking hold in the 990s, which I'm going to associate with the sort of the, the new way or the third way is they talk about it in the UK so that the critique, stronger critique associated with capitalism, associated with some dimensions of sixties counterculture gets turned into a professional culture. With the captain Archer and enterprise, we see a strong reaction to 911 and a return of militarism. But that all of these shows, they're not only expanding the timescale and expanding the franchise properties of Star Trek, but there are also reflecting back on the cultural influence of previous generations so that there's this balance between fidelity and innovation and a way in which the shows themselves and often through the contributions of fans. And so the centrality of fandom to science-fiction cultures overall, which I think now is extending to more genres and more spaces. In the sense that more and more culture as franchise culture these days. The shows themselves are able to function as a critique of previous iterations of themselves. And the chief example that I would hold out is the recent Star Trek Picard. As I show here, you do see Picard in his Star Trek uniform, but in both seasons of the Star Trek Picard series, which started in 2020, they really put the emphasis on the values that were once associated with the federation, which is a paramilitary organization, and supposedly is securing peace and justice. Those values are associated with individuals who are only partially identified with Star Trek or identified with Star Trek. The most recent series that round earlier this year has a fixing the timeline episode, which is really about whether there's going to be a liberal future or whether something darker and more fascist will arise. So you can obviously see how it's reflecting our own current political dilemmas. But I also want to argue it's going back and critiquing. And I would say discovery is a show that does this the best. Critiquing the ways that liberalism was always on fairly shaky foundations because of a presumption of Western exceptionalism, which plays out as human exceptionalism in the series. I'm almost out of my time. I see. So I just briefly want to mention and somehow my pictures didn't line up properly there. So I apologize for that too. That I think this idea of extending media properties allows for some really innovative storytelling. So to show, I wanted to draw attention to is there's a new cereal based on the film American gigolo. And they too are expanding the timeline. So instead of this being a remake, it's actually the main character Julian, 15 years later, he goes to jail at the end of the film. As those of you who've seen the film will know, the series starts 15 years later when he's exonerated and comes out of jail. And it sort of interests versus that narrative with memories of his childhood and how he ended up in sex work in the first place. And so it radically, it draws on the IP of the original film, but also look radically transforms what it can say and ask questions, new questions in this space about sexual exploitation of young men, about gender and identity. So in the same way that I'm suggesting the Star Trek series ask questions that critique the source material they're drawing on. I think the American gigolo is a really great example of the way contemporary television could do that. I guess my main point is all is not in despair in our franchise ID IP driven universe, if not only about mining these properties for the extension of the audience, but that really innovative storytelling that allows us to think back on the influence of previous texts on our political and media history are possible in this space. And thank you very much. Great. Thank you, Cheryl. I'm struck with going back to the first paper, Collins paper, and the emphasis on self adaptation, how we end with a different version of self adaptation. And I think all of these papers were so intriguing in the way they explore the intersections among seriality and genre and adaptation. Before we get to a sort of larger call for questions and comments, I wonder if the panelists have any questions for other panelists. Yeah, Barb, I'm going to start us off. I think you're muted. You're still muted Barb. Now. My good to go. Yes. Okay. Great. So great to be unmuted. I have a question For Colleen and it has to do. I really liked some of the terms you generated to describe artist's work. Self adaptation, extensions, revisits companions. And I wonder when you think about other phone 0 tours, whether these same terms can be applied to other directors in terms of the way they develop their work over time. Or whether you think there's something unique about Bardo signature and these respects. Thanks, Barbara. That's a great question. Obviously, I don t think that the terms should be limited to what Varda is doing. I think there's the possibility for any director to do what it is she's doing, but we just need deepen my Varda project and realizing that she's got so much intertextuality and the terms that we normally use don't seem to apply to what she's doing and any sort of ready way. So it just sort of became necessary to come up with this different taxonomy. And I'm loath to come up with textbooks. Generally been so many of them already at adaptation, intertextuality. And yet there are these innovations that she has on this. In part because everything comes back to this notion of self and the self adaptation. So that I think is really the key. And if to the extent that there are other authors who leverage the self to the extent that she does. Of course, this is a phenomenon that we could certainly see repeated. The other example that I was thinking of bringing up. And of course, you know, with the short time I couldn't was multi jobs adaptation of Atlantis. There is a short film that she did with Atlantic's and then the feature film, which are genres speaking entirely different films. But neither of them really gets back to this notion of self. I highly recommend both of them. They are very different in their way, even if she's trying to draw out some central idea about migration in each of them. She does so an entirely different ways in terms of genre. So that's another example that I'd like to draw attention to it, but I still don't think that DO up is drawing on the same kinds of intertextuality. I would love if anybody has any examples to share with me in the chat, I would love to hear it, but as far as I know, in my mind, it's only Varda, but I'd love to hear more. Thank you, Barbara. Yeah. Thank you. That's really clarify. Thank you. I feel like if we kinda broaden the idea of self adaptation with O2 or figures to the kind of thing that Cheryl was talking about. You can think about say, Lynch and frost and the return, kind of going back to the world of Twin Peaks, but setting it in a post 2008 US environment where things have changed pretty dramatically. So for me that's a kind of self adaptation as well. So other other comments or questions from panelists? Yeah, I will. Yeah, thanks. I was actually just typing it in the chat, but I figured I'd go ahead and just jump in now, but I have a follow-up for Colleen. Really enjoyed your paper. And in terms of what Varda is doing, it reminded me a little bit of what Jacques dummy does with his films. I don't think it's maybe quite the same thing in that self, self-conscious, autobiographical dimension that you're talking about with Varda. But I'm curious what you might say about Varda is adaptation of dummies life in the film that she made about him. Because their films kind of speak to each other in some ways and they're both kind of doing similar things. And then here she's kind of doing an adaptation of his life. Yeah. You've actually cornered the one area of her thermography have not fully explored, which is the way that, especially in the early nineties, just after his death, she ended up returning to his films. And she made a documentary about the jungles of Roche for she did a sort of biopic just before he died. I think he saw the initial Russia's or something, but he didn't manage to see the final film. Can't remember the chronology there. But yeah, I think she's of absorbs his life into her own self adaptation as a way of processing her grief over his loss. So we can absolutely look at what she does with his film on graphy as a form of self adaptation. I don't see a whole lot of evidence that Demi did the same thing with her. I mean, they were very much parallel Directors while they were both living. And then again, like the grief of his passing really kinda pushed her to absorb that into her own self adaptation. So I mean, that is a very specific period in her work and she refers to it and her later documentaries of course. But I would certainly still call that self adaptation, even if the target is very clearly this other person. Great, That's fascinating. Thanks. Yes, thank you. Well, it's really interesting, Laura. Hi, thank you. I've got a question for Shelley. Actually. I really enjoyed your paper, Shelly. Not something that I know very much about at all. But some of the things you were saying, particularly it was the word sleuthing, made me think of the way that the women involved in true crime phantom are encouraged to think about, think about themselves as Missy and yellow jackets uses a lovely term, citizen detectives. And it made me, and it made me think of this idea of women being encouraged to become active sleuthing and so on. And obviously there's a big difference between kind of genre and form. We're talking big difference in time, but I'm wondering whether there's any kind of connections would be drawn there in terms of the way that women's taste in particular is kind of shaped between those two. Oh, thanks. That's a really interesting question. I hadn't really thought about the connection to true crime in contemporary female fans have true crime and knew our audiences. But I think you're hitting on something which is that even now, there is a kind of surprise expressed about women's taste for crime extends to horror, right? And so it hasn't gone away. It was part of the discourse around crime fiction and Nu are in the 40s and you're making me realize that it's really still hear that there's still something perceived to be unladylike about the, this kind of taste. But I think, but I think what is also true of both is that female fans are, are, are, are absolutely fundamental, I would argue to the dissemination of new our tastes. More talks about and probably also to the contemporary dissemination of, I don't know what we want to call it, but true crime tastes. So thank you for reminding me about that connection because I think you're absolutely right. Really interesting with these kind of, these narratives kinda prevail in terms of women's tastes and darker genres and areas of funding my thing. And it was really, you know, as I sort of alluded to the fact that was really pronounced aspect of all of the publicity that surrounded John Harrison in the film's release. And very, very pronounced aspect of her explaining the work she did with Hitchcock and her interest in reading crime fiction and why she wanted to adapt Phantom Lady. And it was all sort of done with this air of, Oh my goodness, isn't this shocking? But she kept insisting that she was representing a much larger community of fans and readers. That's my thing. Thank you so much, I really enjoyed it. That's great. So we do have a couple of hands up. So maybe we can turn to those who have attended the panel. Dan, I see your hand is up and then we'll go to Betty and LC. Great. Thank you all. Fantastic presentations. I'm so glad to be here and listening. Barbara Klinger, I've been really loving all your work on Casablanca, and I just saw it on the UC Press. The book is coming out in November, so congratulations on that. It will be just in time for Christmas. Yeah. So pre-order now, I'm teaching Casablanca on Monday to the big intro to cinema class. And it occurred to me. And we don't do screenings for that class anymore in-person. They're all streams provided by the university. So I wonder it just occurred to me, like, what role does film pedagogy film the university play? Because I expect that 150 students will experience Casablanca for the first time on Monday, a streaming site through as part of a course. So I wonder, in terms of these afterlives, what role do we play as instructors? Yeah, that's that's one thing. That's actually not in the book because there just wasn't enough time and space. The film has such a gigantic footprint in terms of the way it's been taken up over time. But I would say that universities do in my experience of teaching the phone and seeing other people teach it, that they tend to stay with what I call it's legend. On the one hand. And that is the way that films origins have been talked about for 80 years. So a lot of times it's taught as not in terms of its afterlife. In fact, it's, I don't, I don't remember ever seeing that film taught in terms of its afterlife is usually taught it either for formal analysis. It's a classic exhibition of classical Hollywood style. And then on from there in terms of stardom and other things that keep us very, very close to the text and tend to tell about the way its production, which is also legendary and things like that. So it's combination of synchronic production history and then style and other considerations. So I think what the university does besides introducing people to this film is really maybe it's too strong a term, but kind of hammered down the way it's talked about visually. And in terms of 1940 to 43. I see the classrooms role is in those two facets in the way that film has been discussed in terms of academic reading, readings and interpretations. That's, that's a whole different story. But I hope, I hope that goes some way toward answering your question. Perfect, Yes, I'm teaching this classical Hollywood cinema like yeah. And it's perfect vessel for that. It's hard to do better. I just want to say I was teaching. I was talking about Laura call the other day in class and showed the famous, most famous clip from to have and have not. And then showed the Looney Tunes but call to arms, yeah. One of the things we do to, is to bring pair attacks into play, right? Which provides a context for students. I think it's a really interesting question and, yeah, and once you get, once you get into the Paris attacks, there are several. Several animations and the 40s that make fun of the film produced by Warner Brothers for obvious reasons. But once you get into that, I think you start going into what its afterlife means. Because even though, even if the cartoons are made in the 40s, there's still part of its afterlife, the kind of the way it begins to inhabit other parts of culture and other time periods. So the cartoons, I think are really great example of that kind of intertextuality that has a historical dimension. So interesting. Thanks, sir. Font. Yeah. Yeah, Okay. So I'm so star struck today. I was star struck last year as well. But seeing all of you together, I mean, from Julie Tom, Janice thigh, good. I've been teaching your purity hypothesis in my genre glasses. Oh my God. I'm actually shaking. Barbara Klinger. Oh my God. Anyway. So excuse my nervousness, please. First of all, I have a comment to Barbara. Could we also have a look at some films that when they began their lives, their first exhibition were not famous like Wonderful Life. It wasn't a success, but through the reruns, they became this phenomenon. Now, it's not Christmas unless we watch, It's a Wonderful Life or so. I thought this could be a good way to also see the evolution of the exhibition of the different platforms you mentioned. Just just a note. And I have a question for Suzanne and the near historical. Oh, hi. Hi Suzanne. I now say you when you define the discussed the term near historical, you said it's correct me if I'm wrong, it's a text that has no clear I'm literary source. It's something that recreates the past but disrupts the usual partners we sick. And I was wondering if you would include in your arsenal of texts, Bridger done this Utopian fantasy that Oh my God, I forget the name of the creator. Please help. The name of the creator of the Jordan genre rhyme. Rhymes created. Would you include this in this kind, or would it be a different category altogether because she, she actually recreate the past using costumes, the setting. But she also, she's also creating a utopia, which is the thing she does. Usually. Grey's Anatomy was a feminist utopia. In a way. What would you say about Bridger done? I was curious about that. If you know Bridger, then of course, I don't know who wants to go first. I go second. Always the first one actually just a comment and that wasn't actually I saw that Barbara. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Question. Hello. Go ahead. No. If you wanted me to address that or not. In fact, could you remind me what you said? If we if we could see if our policies, we could include those films that were not successful, but through reruns and different exhibition practices in their life, they became or what they are today like it's a wonderful life, was not a gotcha. Um, I I think that is a great model for the kind of history I'm currently interested in doing. Because it shows what the kind of, I guess you could say, obviousness that the moment of origin is just one moment. It can, it can be tremendously important moments, only one moment. And then later on, anything can happen to a film. Same thing with vertigo. It's a Wonderful Life. So many other examples. And the reason they become institutions is because of the forces institutions and our viewing experience is, is that they become, they are acted on by forces that we present them to us and the forces are huge. A lot of people involved in the presentation of a film that helped guide its path toward whatever its future might happen to be. So yes, that's a great example. Thank you. Suzanne. So yes. So I know I'm Bridget. Bridget and I think most people probably have if we went out with Netflix at least. Yeah, So that's an interesting question that I expected to come up today. So well, usually Bridget and is regarded as particularly interesting because of its casting, obviously, and the diversity at play in a costume drama, which is still not. I mean, there's more of that now there are some new and Merlin series. All of which, as we all know, has been met with some wealth and happiness. If I think about particularly new historical fiction, which I regard as quite as an, as an open mode or diverse mode that allows for very different approaches and aesthetic practices. Then that's sort of on the cusp of that. I was actually more thinking about in terms of newest series would be something like Hulu's The Great or Apple's Dickinson, e.g. which I think although they go more in the recognizably metafiction, self-reflexive. Also, Fleabag, ask if you want to be quite honest. Direction. I'm much more comedic than the series that I've been working on this in the past. They go more towards recognizably being what the nitrogen is called historiographic metafiction, right? Although they don't completely disassemble their own narratives, et cetera, et cetera. So those I would very happily count within or regardless Neo historical for Bridget and I'm wondering, and I would be interested in your thoughts on this as well. Whether it actually does, what I would consider the new historical main sort of practice and aim to be to really disrupt established histories and disrupt moreover, formulaic and very tropes, historical fictions. The question would be whether a diverse casting is enough to do that. I don't have the answer for that right now. But if we look beyond that, if you look at the tropes of costume drama, they're all there, right? So what do we consider that to be subversive enough to yes, to give it that name, that series alongside the other series that I've mentioned. And for me that's right now an open question, something to think about. Thank you. But I'm not quite sure I have a definitive answer for you yet, but I'd be interested to know if you would, how you would think about that or anyone else. In fact, when thinking about you, if I may. Now that you've answered, you've said what your thoughts are, I would be more inclined to add it because shown that the show was not as critically acclaimed as the other shows you mentioned. For that because it's also considered a girl show. Soft core for women. Let's say, I've read this. I would want more inclined to add this in your list now because I think the costumes and of course the whole gender thing. But the costumes, the setting, and some of the blog lines are a thing of the century, the present. So for me it's enough. And they can, Shonda rhymes and the creators of the show can do whatever they want with it. And for me, it's enough to put it in that, in that group category. I don't know if you can catch my drift. Now, I'm saying that the lower expectations, aesthetic or artistic we may have from this show at exactly the same reasons. We should add it in Suzanne's group of shows. And this is now me saying what I'm thinking as I'm thinking it. No filter whatsoever. Some of you know, I have no filter, so sorry. Thank you. That's it. That's a really interesting exchange. Thank you both. Lc. Hi, This has been an absolute thrill for me as well. I was teaching during the last amine of this kind. Runaway. I just wanted to make what might sound like a hopelessly grand thematics statement. But it's really about affirming a pet. And I heard through the presentations and thinking about cinema, especially as a form of life for me. And we'd been surrounded by so much death the last couple of years. And I kept hearing affirmations of cinema is a living foam. So I was thinking about the way Laura was talking about how Horace shifts, the way Suzanne was talking about the past that shifts and we can't be arrogant about the way we understand it. And then Barbara was how classic shift and how I have afterlives and then calling was to him at how vitaes life is in her work and how we keep me understanding her life or herself. On that last point, I was thinking about an aimless life because I don't know as much about vita as you do, but I have a sense that she was very aware of her own author function and her own possession of how people answer herself, but equally a sort of resistance to people presuming to know that self. And so it strikes me that itself is sort of endlessly generative as an idea. So it was not really a question, more of an observation button, enthusiastic response to the life by herd running through. This entire panel. Thank you so much. I'll see that's really a great comment, really much appreciated. I want to just alert you all to the chat where there is a fascinating conversation going on about a number of topics. So I wonder if first maybe Colleen, with your question. I think it's for Shelley. And then I want to also call attention to this great exchange between Laura and Ryan and Ryan's question. Sure. I just I wanted to ask Shelley because she mentioned, I think this is fascinating how there was this openness to the audiences for these shows. Either listening to the radio show or watching the film first. And the fact that this was possible, and it sounds like everybody recognized that this was possible. I'm wondering if there were any efforts to put little rewards for doing one or the other first or if that went both ways. And that's also just reminds me of what was willing was talking about this pre franchise behavior. That's exactly what goes on. But obviously probably at a much more minor level. So is there anything offhand? Are there any particular texts that do this really well? Thanks. Colleen. I think that's really, really fascinating idea that the notion of rewards, and I'm going to have to look and listen a little more further to think about it. But, but I think it would extend a course to the novel, which was, some people might have read it initially in 1942. Some people might have bought the movie tie-in in 1944. And I think the question of rewards, I mean, your question is posed in such a way as thinking about sort of deliberate rewards. Let's say that the radio producers put into their adaptation or that the film studio put in knowing there'll be a radio adaptation. I mean, I think there's those kind of deliberate awards, potential rewards potentially, but also accidental rewards, right? Of this multiplicity of listening and reading and watching and this sort of extended enjoyment of the texts that you all know so much about as scholars of adaptation and seriality. But I think, I think what the particular rewards are with Phantom Lady. I don't have specific thoughts right now, but I'm definitely going to think about that. So thank you for that prompt. Yeah, No, thanks. I was thinking deliberate rewards if they're thinking if this is coming out so simultaneously, were they aware of each other? Are they aware enough to feed into each other in specific ways? Either mean that might end up pulling in production history as well. So I mean, that's kind of a simple question with a potential rabbit hole. So thank you for considering that. So I wonder if either Ryan or Laura wants to speak on this sort of extensive exchange about pray and the idea of taxonomies. Ryan, do you want to ask your questions so that others can participate? Yeah. Sure. Hi everyone. So I might just reread what I post in the chat, just allow for posterity of the recording, scrolling upward. So this is a question typically to Laura's presentation about how it made me think of the film, Pray the recent entry in the predator franchise. And I was curious if she and perhaps others on the panel had thoughts about how that felt might fit within the really cool paradigm or perhaps be a different animal altogether in the way it kind of plays with the franchise without fitting into a lot of the signifiers that we associate with wrinkles or legacy. Legacy calls about bringing back old characters and burdening it with easter eggs and callbacks. And flora already provided a very stimulating response, but I don't know if others want to chime in. I'm happy. I'm happy just to reiterate, I think I did say to say to Ryan, but my knowledge of the predator franchise is shameful, sketchy. In terms of trying to define, pray, I'm not sure where to put it, but praise, fantastic and they recommend it for anybody who hasn't seen it. It's really, really fascinating film. But I think that, I think that it's a really interesting example of the way that contemporary adaptation and stereo forms quite often overlap in terms of how we might consider them for taxonomies. So when it comes to labeling, how do we actually divide and group different kinds of forms when they're often bound by intertextuality, when they often overlap or their elastic or their fluid. And they move around. And I think that, I think that prayer is a particular example of this meme Ryan, you mentioned about sort of the language that he used was really interesting. But it doesn't have this kind of burden of reference, but it doesn't feel the need to call up easter eggs and bring things back into the, back into the film. But of course, the key thing it does is bring back predator. So in terms of what I was looking at and kind of re, re-imagining these antagonists, these key monsters. That aspect is definitely. Into some, in some regard that might be the only iconography from the franchise that you need to do to attach it. But what that means in terms of labeling as a particular form, I'm not sure. I also just released a book on horror remakes. Just published a book on horror remakes and found it very, very difficult. One of my arguments throughout is how is how difficult it is to categorize these forms and how to divide them and even thinking about breaking things down into chapters. We discussed reboots. But actually if they fail to reboot franchise, did they become a rainmaker themselves? Or if something is a pretty cool but it's replaying key scenes, key characters, key lines, repeating key things from the film is a remake of some form, becomes very, very difficult, I think, to make these categorizations and I'm sure others have thoughts on this. I know, I know a lot of people I can see on this page at the minute have written about this and indeed are cited them on this very masses. So I'm sure that other people have thoughts. And of course, the idea of categorization goes to this, this project and how we define seriality and adaptation. And I was thinking when you were talking about recalls and prequels about Will, your presentation and this notion of like the Abbott and Costello adaptations of the franchise. And that's a kind of when Frankenstein and Dracula show up there. It's a kind of legacy quilt, right? So yeah, I don't know. Yeah. Yeah, It's interesting because, I mean, the Abbott and Costello series was also a universal properties, was their way of recycling their back catalog by giving it this new life in the form of something comedic because presumably these characters were no longer scary to people. But I'm fascinated in how the home video releases, not just VHS, but the DVD and Blu-ray releases have reincorporated the Abbott and Costello films as part of the canon, as opposed to being these parodies that or something else. Now included in the full sets and branded with the universal classic, classic monsters. I guess in some ways they are in some kind of loose narrative continuity with the earlier films. But I think a lot of a certain generation, a lot of associations with the universal monsters were, and what that series meant it, it came through parodies like the album Castello films that sort of have the monsters meeting each other and drawing attention to certain conventions in the series. James near Moore's work has come up in this panel and I'm thinking about his chapter on the war and parody and how so much of our associations with new R and our understanding of what Anwar is through this retroactive, like recycling of newer and Looney Tunes cartoons and things like that. I think the universal monsters work in a similar way. Yeah, that's a really interesting connection. So I am noticing, despite how thrilling this conversation is that we are at 11:30 Eastern US. So I think we need to break so that we can start in earnest. Our next panel, which will begin in 30 min. But I just wanted to thank you all for this really thoroughly engaging conversation and all the great papers. And we will, I think I'm right in this, we will be saving the chat. So we're happy to circulate that if anybody, if you request transcript of the chat, we're able to provide that down the line. So there's a lot there's a lot there. So thank you all so much. Special, thanks to the presenters and hopefully will, but thanks to all of you for being here and for your great questions and comments. And we will we will see you all soon. Thank you, Julie. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. And before everyone joins me in a mad dash to the powder room.
To Be Continued, 2. Panel 1. Genre I
From Kelly O'Rourke October 12, 2022
2 plays
2
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.
To Be Continued, 2
…Read more
Less…
Defining, Producing, Performing, Consuming, and Theorising Serials and Adaptations
Organisers: Julie Grossman (Le Moyne College), Thomas Leitch (University of Delaware), Iain Robert Smith (King’s College), Constantine Verevis (Monash University)
TO BE CONTINUED seeks to bring scholars of adaptation and seriality into an open conversation with one another, not by recommending a single master set of terms or procedures for adaptation and seriality, still less by seeking to absorb either one of them into the other, but rather by raising questions of common concern to both fields and encouraging practitioners in both to share their views and facilitate collaboration.
- Tags
- Department Name
- English
- Date Established
- September 23, 2022
- Appears In
Link to Media Page
Loading