I chose these questions based off of what I the kind of information that would determine any problems with the video and advise us best to be able to see what we could have improved on and changed in the video. I posted the link to the survey in some filmmaking and videography forums, this allowed me to get some more detailed and in depth answers to the questions.
The first question being does the video look professional this was something important to us in the production of the video as we wanted to ensure that we created something that looked professional and did not look like a student film/video. From the 5 different responses all 5 said that they agree that the video looks professional which is very good.
From the results we can see that 4/5 agreed that the performance did tie into the narrative well. This is good as the original idea of having the performance was not necessarily planned to tie into the narrative and it was only done when editing
The first answer says only the performance links to the genre this is understandable as the performance is the main link to the genres stereotypes and trends within the genre eg. clothing etc.
The second answer goes into more detail: ' Not really. The song is great and has a nice energy and the vocal has a nice gravelly indie sound, but the visual doesn't represent any of that. The story line doesn't build into anything relateable to either the lyric or the genre' This answer is understandable they mention how the song choice is good however nothing specifically links the video to the genre which is something that we would want to improve on if we were able to do it again. It was not something that was taken into huge consideration as our main focus when shooting and planning the video was to ensure that it was visually good and the narrative was there and made sense.
The other answer agree with the statement, which is interesting and shows how it can be subjective to each person sometimes.
Onto the last question:
1st response:
To summarise this answer the editing was off a times and also the narrative was weak but its good visually. So from this answer we can see that we achieve some of what we set out to do that being the visual side, however feel behind on the narrative side which is the most difficult part to succeed in.
I think if we were to do this again the narrative would be changed but the subject would have been the same so we could rethink something that would have been more engaging and made better sense than what we went with (injury).
2nd response:
To summarise the editing was a bit off and also the narrative lacked depth, similar to the previous criticism the main problem with the video seems to be the narrative and how it doesn't have much content to the video. This did then impact the editing of the video as we had to fit in the large sequence of clips that showed a large part of the narrative, this then impacted the flow and the selection process of the clips which resulted in what could be seen as some poor editing choices.
3rd response:
Again the trend of results is showing as the main point of criticisms of the video is the narrative in the video. This just tells us that we had made some bad decisions when it comes to the choice and the direction we wanted the narrative to go.
4th response:
Once again a similar kind of response as the previous ones the narrative seems to be the main problem and also causing other confusion with the audience as he mentions about not understanding who the main character is in the video. The poor choice of narrative will cause other problems with characters within the video. They do mention something important that being that there is no conflict in the narrative this is something we tried with the injury but as seen from the various answers it has not been effective, for all good narratives they need to have some conflict so this is one of the main points that we would need to include if done again.
5th response:
Again confirming that the narrative was weak and made him/her want to skip head, however the style (camera movements, colour grading) that we used was successful and fitted the genre and the feel that we were going for with this video. The video was intented to have a certain style and its nice to see that the audience feels as thought we have achieved that style.
To summarise the responses:
From these different answers it is clear what our main issue is with the video and what we did not do well with the video, that being the narrative. Going into the video the narrative was something that was addressed a fair amount and we wanted to go with the idea that our main character was training and then ran into having an injury (conflict) the remains of the video would then be him getting over injury.
The mistake we have made is that we did not show the injury early on enough so that didn't give us enough time to show how the main character gets over the injury, only one shot is shown of the main character boxing again after the little sequence of clips of him getting the injury this is where the confusion of the audience has occurred and this is one of the main reasons why the narrative doesn't make sense.
In terms of the production and the visual side of the video it seems that all the responses were happy with it and thought that the visuals of the video looked professional and were nicely done. This is great as we did go into great lengths to ensure the video looked *good* we really wanted some high quality visuals with good colour and good lighting and its good to know that we have achieve that.
Overall I feel as though we have achieve a lot of what we set out to achieve good visuals with a good pacing. The only part that the video falls down on the narrative side and how it causes some confusion as well as how it could be seen as unrelatedable to the lyrics or the performance, however personally I feel as though some of the lyrics do relate to the narrative in terms of 'tried and failed' which is one of the main points that we were trying to show in the narrative of the video.
No comments:
Post a Comment