Planning: Much better PowToon presentation, although some of the wordier slides are still going too fast.
I liked that you highlighted certain aspects of the storyboard and script, though it could also have been good to mention that some of your ideas did not get to be used, and why. (For example, the “cash” sound.)
Planning should also show examples of the props and costumes you mentioned, rather than simply describing them. In English, you can only use words. For Media Studies, you have the Internet. Google and screenshots are your friends.
Planning helped ‘a lot’. In what ways, specifically? (Better job of this on Storyboard & Shot List, though still surface level.)
Ultimately the PowToon serves as a good vehicle for commentary, though not for prolonged exploration of your planning resources. I think you should have JPGs or documents as well so we can look at your work without having to find the right timecode in your video and then pause it.
OVERALL: 12/20
Still. Satisfactory research into your intended exploration and how meanings are created; this is understandable at this stage of the course. That said, the research clearly informs the CCR to a good degree, where you’ve expanded with greater insight.
* Ability to plan a media product is satisfactory, as seen by evidence in planning segment. Decisions and revisions are evident, particularly in the editing process. The finished product clearly comes from this process and is readable as a film sequence, with an apparent meaning for the viewer. Elements relating to film are satisfactory: * 180-degree rule not broken, though only one over-the-shoulder shot. “Shot-reverse-shot” most convincingly displayed by jump cuts to MCUs of character on opposite side of screen, or through alternating PoV shots. Still not quite the technical definition of the rule itself. * Match on action shot at water to Jesse’s lips – would’ve been stronger on ECU shot of drinking. * Continuity errors in India’s glasses – where are they during her CU shots? * Dialogue fine. * More thought needs to go into setting. * Competent use of digital tools in CCR.
CCR: Good consideration of the effect of sound and shot-types. Slide 3 talks about resources that are helpful for calming the nerves of the interviewee; this would have been good to bring up if your film had included Jane Smith utilising similar material to calm her own nerves as the interviewer. Since that isn’t here, it seems like extra (and barely related) information.
Good thought on reversing roles, though. I also like the level of attention you paid to learning production processes. The depth of these entries will develop as we progress in the course, though you’re clearly on the right track.
Strong reflection on lighting, camera and editing in the “Integrating Technologies” section. Still, I would have liked you to explain a bit more on how cuts and speed adjustments helped. Good talk on the title.
OVERALL: 15/20
Question #1 considerations needed the most development, although subsequent discussion reveals competent awareness of how meanings are created in media products.
ALEXIS-
ReplyDeletePlanning:
Much better PowToon presentation, although some of the wordier slides are still going too fast.
I liked that you highlighted certain aspects of the storyboard and script, though it could also have been good to mention that some of your ideas did not get to be used, and why. (For example, the “cash” sound.)
Planning should also show examples of the props and costumes you mentioned, rather than simply describing them. In English, you can only use words. For Media Studies, you have the Internet. Google and screenshots are your friends.
Planning helped ‘a lot’. In what ways, specifically? (Better job of this on Storyboard & Shot List, though still surface level.)
Ultimately the PowToon serves as a good vehicle for commentary, though not for prolonged exploration of your planning resources. I think you should have JPGs or documents as well so we can look at your work without having to find the right timecode in your video and then pause it.
OVERALL: 12/20
Still. Satisfactory research into your intended exploration and how meanings are created; this is understandable at this stage of the course. That said, the research clearly informs the CCR to a good degree, where you’ve expanded with greater insight.
- T. Marcus
ALEXIS-
ReplyDeleteFinal cut of film sequence:
OVERALL: 13/20
* Ability to plan a media product is satisfactory, as seen by evidence in planning segment. Decisions and revisions are evident, particularly in the editing process. The finished product clearly comes from this process and is readable as a film sequence, with an apparent meaning for the viewer. Elements relating to film are satisfactory:
* 180-degree rule not broken, though only one over-the-shoulder shot. “Shot-reverse-shot” most convincingly displayed by jump cuts to MCUs of character on opposite side of screen, or through alternating PoV shots. Still not quite the technical definition of the rule itself.
* Match on action shot at water to Jesse’s lips – would’ve been stronger on ECU shot of drinking.
* Continuity errors in India’s glasses – where are they during her CU shots?
* Dialogue fine.
* More thought needs to go into setting.
* Competent use of digital tools in CCR.
- T. Marcus
ALEXIS-
ReplyDeleteCCR:
Good consideration of the effect of sound and shot-types. Slide 3 talks about resources that are helpful for calming the nerves of the interviewee; this would have been good to bring up if your film had included Jane Smith utilising similar material to calm her own nerves as the interviewer. Since that isn’t here, it seems like extra (and barely related) information.
Good thought on reversing roles, though. I also like the level of attention you paid to learning production processes. The depth of these entries will develop as we progress in the course, though you’re clearly on the right track.
Strong reflection on lighting, camera and editing in the “Integrating Technologies” section. Still, I would have liked you to explain a bit more on how cuts and speed adjustments helped. Good talk on the title.
OVERALL: 15/20
Question #1 considerations needed the most development, although subsequent discussion reveals competent awareness of how meanings are created in media products.
- T. Marcus