Evaluation part two

How didyou use media technologies in the construction and research, planning and
evaluation stages?

Media technologies have been vital for us, of course; without them we could not have
produced our film. The technologies we used in the construction of our product included the camera, obviously, editing software, a virtual storyboard and a photo editing software. These were used to create and hone the products, and to polish them off to the best of our extent.

Whilst researching, the main technology we used was the internet on the school
computers and our laptops. This enabled us to look up funny stories from around the world and diversify our influences.
Once again in the planning stages the main technology used was computers. We used a virtual storyboard for planning camera angles, shots and the like. We
wrote up a script on Microsoft word, and had a general outline of what we hoped to achieve on that same software. It was also used for writing a synopsis.

In the evaluation stage, once again the main technology used was the computer. I am writing this in Microsoft word, all the stuff on our blogs was obviously uploaded using a computer. We also used a projector to show groups of people our film.

Overall, technology has been very important for us; without it we could not have
produced our film at all, let alone got it to a standard that we believe to be
our best. We did not use all the technology available to us though; we chose not to use a green screen in our film, as this was unnecessary; we feel we would just be using it for the point
of it, and this would cheapen our film.

We also chose the same fate for an ultra-slow motion camera; we decided
that, for our purposes, regular slow motion done on a computer would be more
than adequate.

Evaluation part one

What haveyou learned from your audience feedback?

Audience feedback is of course essential for makers of any films, and it provides us
with a valuable opportunity to get an independent assessment of our work. We have shown our film to a variety of people, mostly in the age brackets 17-19 and 30-51. People in the first age bracket were essentially friends of ours, and the second were mostly teachers, parents and
family. What we learned proved very useful in the following weeks.

One of the most significant things that came about as a result of audience feedback was
the removal of one of the scenarios, as it was deemed to be too offensive for
inclusion. This scene was not deemed too bad by the younger age group, but the older age group had a very strong reaction to it, and as a result we decided not to include it, as we wanted our
film to appeal to this age group, and we knew that we would have to make more
effort for this; the humour naturally appeals to the younger age group.

Our feedback testing was extensive, and we showed our film to as many people as possible in
the hopes of gaining an insight to as many differing viewpoints as possible. The results were mixed, with some reactions favourable, and some not so much. We attempted to gain as much constructive criticism from everyone as possible, as this would enable us to develop our
film as much as possible. Some were more useful than other, with more to say and more opinions on a wider variety of topics.

The specific age group we found to be the most useful in our research was the 30-51 age groups,
who on average were better able to articulate their ideas, and recommend a
course of action for us.

A very important function of audience feedback was to tell us when we were going too
far with jokes. When we were making the film, we found it very easy to get carried away with some elements, and the group opinions helped us to stay grounded and understand what was and what was not acceptable to certain audiences.