Final Post - Thanks And Good Work Lads

We have now completed the main task, and subsequently i have answered the 7 evaluation questions required.

Overall, I would like to thank my team members for all the work they have put in to all of our work, preliminary and main task. And im sure I speak for all of us when I say that im extremely proud of what we have accomplished and found it a pleasure to work with you all. Cheers for sticking with the whole thing throught the thick and thin, the stressful situations, and the issues that arose, such as when i was absent a few times for filming. But looking back I do not think it influenced our film for the worst, and if I did, I would have been present. And that I believe it was the best it possibly could have been, and that we should give ourselves a pat on the back. And special thanks to Brian for making arguably a brilliant title and image to go with it, and for providing the props along with josh, and that its been a long and tough road making the film, but i feel that we made a really good film. And thanks to the guys for helping me with blog issues.

Scotty/Junkie. :)

Evaluation Question 7) Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt in the progression from it to the full product?

Looking back at our preliminary task compared to our main piece, I personally feel that we have as a team learnt alot when it comes to producing a film, such as time, effort, risk, issues and limitations, and the overall process. We were ofcourse bound to make mistakes in our prelim as it was our first piece of media filming, and we had only just learned about all the new equipment we had to use for this task, however this did help us to learn how to use them well eventually, and this enabed us to make our main tasks to be the best they could arguably be and helped us cut down on mistakes in our main task.

Firstly, one of the most important issues for any film, including our preliminary and main task were the issues with continuity, which kept arising in our preliminary task. However, we took this onboard after realising these mistakes, and this gave us the constructive criticism we needed to make sure this did not happen again, and arguably, this is what the preliminary task is for, to enable us to create a film, and practise, and then later compare how we were at the start, to how we are now in terms of media knowledge, skill and teamwork.

For example we learnt to make sure that we did not settle for purely 'o.k' footage, and push ourselves to do the best we could and that at the end it would hopefully pay off. Meaning that before we began filming our main piece, we set everything up, and practised the shot a few times, so that everyone knew what it would look like, and if any mistakes were made, that they were identified, usually straight away, and we made sure that each member of the team saw the footage, so we all played a part, all had input, and if someone spotted something any of the others in the team did not.

The continuity issues we made in our preliminary task weren't immensely common, but were still there nonetheless, and took away from the slick/professional zeal we wanted to give off. Such as in a shot, a door was clearly open, and in the next shot over the same area, is shown to be closed, these small issues may not be noticeable to the majority, but if it takes away from the experience for a minority of people, they are in the end our target audience, and this is not something we want to do. Some were down to pure accidental human error, such as the camera man can be seen in a mirror filming the murder scene in the toilet, these little faults wouldn't be accepted in a film in a cinema, and seen as bad film making and editing, and therefore we strived to cut any mistakes from our main task. And other smaller examples are:the camera man's foot clearly visible as he drops to the ground, and other issues we encountered along the way. That we thought would not be too hard to work out, such as:organization, scheduling, locations.

However, we noted these mistakes down, so that we definitely did not make them twice and as it was our main piece we wanted to excel above the rest and prove we had what it takes to make a good film for anyone who wishes to watch it to view and enjoy, and for ourselves to look back on and be proud of, therefore we surpassed ourselves and pooled our idea's, thoughts and on several occassions sat down for several hours discussing issues, ways to fix them, and overall how we wanted it to work out in terms of completion time, time spent on individual shots etc and focus ourselves 100% on the main task.

This allowed us to begin filming, and subsequently after this was completed, start to edit our finished footage and create it into a film. Which took us a little longer than initially planned because we were all passionate about the film and ofcourse as people had different thoughts about the film, the issues it raised etc. With the camera shots, we wanted to use some of the techniques we picked up for the preliminary, but also some creativity and be spontaneous in order to put personality into our our main piece. Therefore the prelim allowed us to get a direction of how we could improve, where exactly to improve, and knowledge on the equipment involved so that we could in the main piece, get straight to filming and not be stopped in our tracks by issues that arose, such as in our pre - lim.

Also, in addition to our own personal opinions of how are preliminary compared to our main task, we in addition put a question in the feedback questionnare previously posted, which is as follows: "Do you think our main task was better than our prelim?" to which all 21 audience members replyed yes, as it was a closed question, with the options of yes or no. I feel that we used our knowledge of media we had learned, common sense in some cases, and our teamwork to make the main piece as good as it possibly could have been.

We all helped each other out with things we weren't sure about, and for example, one would monitor the other (where possible) to make sure issues like continuity did not arise like in our preliminary. I also feel the non-diagetic sound is better in the main task because it slots neatly within the genre, whereas the one in our preliminary task (Psychotic) was arguably slightly over the top, not 100% focused on and not as good as we could have made it. However, on the other hand it was our first venture into media filming.

Furthermore, our editing skills were a massive leap forward compared to our preliminary task because, as i said before, our improved knowledge and techniques, and some subtle changes, like better use of titles and fonts that fitted the genre, further keeping it in the planned conventions. Also, referencing our new techniques learned, we learned how to use cross cutting to aid our film and its atmosphere and overall zeal. As we did not use this techniques in our prelim, but it was planned from the start for our preliminary, further showing our preliminary influenced our main task more than it may show. We also played with a far wider arsenal of shot knowledge for our main task , which we aimed to keep the audience in focus and interested.

However, apart from any problems we had with our main task, we feel that our preliminary was a definite aid for us, and without it our main task would definitely not has been as good as it was. And therefore this gave us a learning curve that was definitely useful, and we are all proud as a team of our preliminary task, and our main task.

Evaluation Question 6) What have you learnt about technologies from the process of constructing this product?

During the creation of our main piece, we used alot of different technological devices some of us haven't used before, meaning it was a learning curve for us, such as some hadn't used a video camera properly, or tripods, and none of us had use the imacs which we used to non linear edit our main task. We used our preliminary task as a basis and we learnt from this how to use alot of the devices, or at least practise, by the time we come to our main task, we were arguably fairly well prepared and decent with the equipment.

Obviously, some were easier by far, such as how to mount a camera to a tripod, to adjust it, to create shots, such as pan, zoom etc. Some were far harder, such as the cameras themselves, they were hard to use in terms of settings, such as daylight, night, zoom, focus etc, this created minor setbacks, but were overcome in the short run, and these problems enabled us to know what to do if it did arise again.

Arguably the most useful and important piece of technology we used in the entire process was the imacs, as these enabled us to insert titles, credits, music, voiceovers, and to non - linear edit, so we didn't need all our footage at once before we could edit. Overall i believe our group picked up on how to use all the equipment quickly, although some options couldn't be taught in the time frame available. And some arguably minor equipment, such as the tripod, helped us to maintain steady shots, to use the camera's to their full advantage, and give us the best possible footage, and the night vision setting on the camera allowed us to keep filming, even later in the evenings, which we used several times due to necessity.

Also some features on the imacs came into play, such as the imovie (which we edited all our footage on and made our final version, and our preliminary task) and garage band, the latter allowing us to make radio effects for HQ.

Unfortunately, the imacs did have some limitations, which we don't think prohibited our film, but if possible, would have made it a better film. Such as when we wanted to use a split screen shot for our film, as it would have made the film better, as it would have been more into the conventions, been different from many others and added a slick feel to it. This may have enabled different feedback. A further limitation was poor sound quality on the part of the cameras. We recieved feedback from our audience suggesting it would have been better if sound quality was increased. This was because the cameras we video recorded onto have built in microphones that aren't the best available, and somewhat hindered us, as sound clarity is arguably a must in any film. An example of this is when the junkie myself says "Have you got the stuff to the drug dealer (Josh)" but these simply cannot be heard well/at all, also the short battery life cut filming for the task down on several occassions, as we could not obviously film with a camera with a dead battery.

Furthermore, more advanced editing software, capable of the details stated above, like the software FinalCut would have allowed us to create a split screen which we wanted.

Overall, we encountered several limitations, but I feel we overcome these to the best of our ability's and made a good film with the equipment provided nonetheless.

Evaluation Question 5) How did you attract/address your audience?

We are targeting an audience of males and females aged 15-26. We made sure we had the main conventions of crime and action in our piece. This was done by evaluating the genre, as detailed in a previous post, such as for action we realised it had to have:chase scenes, fast camera shots, use of guns, drugs and cars. And we made sure our film used these expected properties well, however we had to put in a twist/snag in the story to keep the audiences interest peaked. This also simultaneously created a hybrid genre, a USP (Unique Selling Point) and if we were to make the film in its entirity, a possible advantage over other competition, i.e. other films.

To keep ourselves well within the conventions of action and attracted the audience we needed/wanted, was to have one standout piece of footage, within the film, in our case the chase scene through the alleways and the bridge to the finale. This was poured over immensely, we used non - diagetic music in the background, this creates an aura of suspense, and keeps interest on the film. We then countered this by managing to use diagetic sounds to see if it would force a response from our audience and also to make the film seem real, such as the ambient car noises heard on the bridge very long/estabilishing shot on the A13 road, and the wheel spinning noise when the car drives away.

To further our venture into our conventions was to clearly show the drug dealer and the junkie dealing what could be seen to be drugs, as a shot of drug dealing is arguably common in action/crime films/dramas .Although this shot is over in seconds, it sets the scene for the film, that dodgy dealings are going on, and that something more is happening than just drugs. Furthermore, when CID1 brings the the drug dealer to the ground, he restrains him with handcuffs, and asks him one straight question, we could compare this as similiar to a conventional interrogation scene, which could arguably be essential in any action/crime film/drama wishing to do well, as it presents oppurtunitys for story unravelling and the typical good cop/bad cop scenario.

One way we attracted the audience to our film and made it unique was the use of camera shots we used. One question within the questionnaire was 'What did you most like about our film?' We found that the majority of answeres were the rande of creative shots. The most popular shot of the film (found by the audience feedback questionnaire) was the establishing shot across the bridge.

From the results from the questionnaire we were able to conclude that we had addressed/attracted the correct target audience since, almost, everybody said that they would like to watch the remainder of our film, 'In Deep.'

Evaluation Question 4) Who would be the audience for our media product?

I believe that our core target audience would be men, from 15 to 26 years of age. We typically expected women to not wish to view the whole film if asked, and most men to say they would, however, we subsequently found that we would infact attract both.

This bar chart confirms to us about our decision for age range for our film as 20 out of 21 classmatess would watch the rest of the film if asked. Also, of the 21 asked, 10 were male and 11 were female.

The first decisions for the making of the film was which genre we would focus on. We decided to create an almost hybrid genre of crime and action. Using the questionnaire as a tool we can tell what our audience thought the genre would be.

This bar chart shows that most opted for genres chosen was crime and action, which was our aim.

We also wanted to see what certificate people expected our film to be, we had a rough idea of Certificate 15. The results of this question is shown below.

The majority was infact 15, as if it was 18, then we would lose a key audience because anyone 15-17 would not be able to purchase/view the film. Also if it was 12, then adults will think it is a child's film, and have no interest in it. We are happy our audience themselves would expect it to be a certificate 15 because it allows the film to be of interest to a huge core market, therefore giving us a larger audience, and a larger revenue as a byproduct of this.

Evaluation Question 3) What kind of media institution might distribute your media product and why?

I believe that our film is more of an independent movie, and because of this we believe it would attract more people. Therefore, we would approach independent distribution companies that would distribute our film, such as Film Four as they are known to only back 4 - 5 films a year, and back several english films, or sometimes just buy the rights for them, I believe going independent rather than a bigger company, such as miramax for example.

This enables our film to fit into a niche, so that the bigger films that have bigger budgets, more backing and more expectations as a whole, wouldn't be against our film, and vice versa, and therefore might also have more success of becoming a recognised and successful film. Furthermore we noticed that our film has alot of the same characteristics as some american made independent films, we could pitch this to an american independent distribution company, for them to distribute in america. This would enable us to reach a bigger audience, more viewings, more feedback, and enable us to generate more revenue for the film, which would ofcourse go into paying back anyone appropiate, however the film may have low budget costs anyway, and possibly enable a sequel to be made

Therefore we would approach independent distributors like FilmFour who may be interested in our film because it might stand out amongst the crowd. Also, we have a USP (Unique selling point) in that our plot differs from most others, as it has elements of crime and action, and that our story shows both of these such as when CID1 discovers that CID2 has been kidnapped by the antagonist Kelvin Rimante, possibly hinting to a backstory behind this, this peaks the audiences interest, and would arguably seal our audience for the film.

Evaluation Question 2) How does our media product represent particular social groups?

In our piece I think we as a team thought carefully about how different social groups are being represented within our film, we felt like we wanted to make more of an impact, and so wanted to use more than one representation. We started out by initially having a black drug dealer as the antagonist. Typically, black people are generally represented poorly in action and crime genres and it would most likely be accepted that black people are usually the antagonists. We felt it was a good step to keep to this genre, as it gives a represenation immedieatly, but one the audience may not notice till after. we also played with this convention by having by having myself, as a caucasean junkie with him.

This therfore challenges one aspect that the antagonists are typically black and this means that our film does not just make one race seem worse than any other. A further way we showed differences in social groups within our film was gender. We typically showed the male's in the film as the dominant protagonists. Whilst the women did the tasks of providing information, and being their aids in the field, leaving the men to do the life threatening physical work. This inaccurately portrays women to not be as able as men and that they must do more menial tasks an stick to what they can do, ofcourse this is wrong, but we feel this is what the genre's are saying about women, and that we saw no major reason to change this convention, if if we do not personally agree.

This meant we were well within the conventions of our genres, evidence of this can be seen in several TV dramas, such as ‘Touch of Frost’. Touch of Frost uses a middle aged male for a main character and portrays women to be less able than the men.

Furthermore the social status within our film is given off sometimes obviously through the use of the four key area's of mise-en-scene, camera, editing/SFX and sound. As an audience, we can tell that CID1 (Brian) has a higher status than CID2 (James). This is first shown when the audience see that CID1 is searching through Rimante's folder, which connotes he is in authority and therefore must be in control. Moreover, CID1 is wearing a baseball cap and a lighter shade of clothes than CID2 which brings the audience's attention to bear on CID1. This is backed up ever more by the situation in which CID1 restrains the drug dealer (Josh). Also, smaller things such as the fact that CID1 has more camera time overall than any other character, meaning, he is obviously watched more closely by the audience.

In terms of our camera work we managed to use our knowledge of a variety of shots throughout. We advanced what we had learnt from the preliminary task, such as when we used match-on-action when CID1 was getting out of the car. We also used other shots, such as birds eye view, establishing, close ups and our jib shot inspired shot, which was as close as we could get to a jib shot itself. we also used angles, such as when when CID1 has the drug dealer on the ground in the finale, it clearly shows CID1 talking to the dealer, showing CID1 has a higher status.

Sound was used cleverly in our film because rather noticeably CID1 has lots of dialogue whereas CID2 has a few. Meaning, the audience can decipher that CID1 has the higher status. However, in the finale this is flipped on its head as we are presented with the voice of Kelvin Rimante the status changes. As this happens the film logo appears, and a low bass tone is shown, which we used to signify the end of CID1's authority and status. The antagonist Kelvin Rimante becomes the figure of authority as CID1 quickly learns of his partner's fate and must now obey him in order to see an end to it all.

editing was used in our film, but not as specifically as we used the other 3 key area's, meaning we did not hit one convention of the usual action film with plenty of special effects, but I feel this was for the better, as it gave the film a more realistic and genuine feel, and creates emotion rather than just pure mindless action. This is however, not to say we didn't use any editing within our piece. Such as when we showed the cross cutting between the two chases of the drug dealer & CID1 and the second of the junkie & CID2. This creates an air of suspense as they want to know what happened to one chase, and then the other straight after.

Furthermore, in terms of editing the black transition effect after the antagonist Kelvin Rimante shot the drug dealer, as we researched and found this is usually used to show time has passed in between the 2 shots, and signalled the entrance of CID1 again, and this transition only needed to be short, as the audience is most likely used to this sort of editing from other action and crime films/dramas.