COLUMNS – “Adaptation”

The conglomeration of the media industries has seen adaptation as a means of maximizing synergy. More precisely, these companies have found value in delivering content across platforms and adapting narratives between media. Beyond this corporate practice, though, adaptation is a defining feature of both “old” and “new” media. The aim of this issue is to explore the various methods by which adaptation informs our media landscape.

Columns welcomes submissions of approximately 800-3,500 words (Chicago format). Topics may include but are not limited to:

- What defines adaptation today? How, for example, have concepts of adaptation changed because of media conglomeration?
- What differences and similarities exist with adaptation practices in Hollywood and transnational cinemas?
- How are theatrical and nontheatrical consumption practices borrowing ideas from one another? (Consider, for instance, the domestication of movie theaters along with consumers’ investments in home theater systems.)
- How are Hollywood films, like Iron Man 3 (2013), re-edited to appeal to international audiences? How are “foreign” films adapted to appeal to American audiences?
- How is adaptation related to the concept of transmedia?
- What are the effects of transnational television adaptations?
- How do fan remakes (or “demakes”) create intertextual meaning?
- How is Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin’s understanding of the double logic of remediation present today?
- What meaning does adapting content from a digital medium to a non-digital medium generate? - How are consumers resisting or subverting the intended uses of new products? (Consider the desire of some consumers to hack video game consoles or jailbreaking iPhones.)
- What meaning does converting a real-world space for use in a fictional visual text create?

Please submit columns and inquiries to James Fleury, Columns Editor, at fleuryjb@ucla.edu by February 14, 2014.

Visit http://www.tft.ucla.edu/mediascape/ to view the current issue of Mediascape.