Final Products. Alive – Chase & Status

My name is Hanif Arriega and this is my A2 Media Studies blog for JHC Productions

Candidate Number: 3085

Centre Number: 69559

FINAL VIDEO

If it doesn’t play, use this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zrQDvVDf_s

It is also important to note that due to copyright infringements, the video may not be able to be viewed on mobile devices and can be only watched on computers.

DIGIPAK

Screen Shot 2016-03-08 at 3.07.33 PM

ADVERT

Untitled12

(EVALUATION TASK 3) What have you learned from your audience feedback?

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 9.58.55 AMScreen Shot 2016-03-18 at 7.33.20 PM

As you can see from this, our video wasn’t much of a hit. It’s been up for a little less than a month now, only to rack up a total of 64 views and two likes. The views are most likely a result of posting our video on Facebook, which would’ve attracted the majority of our audience (Friends, Family, etc). I believe if our video had been more appealing, we could’ve had a lot more views. This would be due to friends sharing the video or sending the link to other parties. Although we only got two likes, we could be happy that at least some viewers wanted to show their appreciation for our work. From this, I gather that our video needed a lot more work to be interesting and attractive to audiences.

 

Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 7.39.03 PMScreen Shot 2016-03-17 at 7.42.28 PM.png

From this information, we can see that the majority of our viewers were from the UK. However, it seems that a couple people from Poland and Belgium had viewed our video. We had also made some views from people in the United States. Which meant that we attracted some audience members who do not have a connection with us (Friends/Family). From our Playback locations, a little more than half viewed our video directly from the YouTube website. The rest would’ve probably watched the video through our WordPress blog or on Facebook.

Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 7.46.38 PMScreen Shot 2016-03-17 at 7.51.19 PM.png

Screen Shot 2016-03-17 at 7.41.16 PM.pngOur average view duration was 1:57 minutes and the total length of our video is 3:52 minutes. From this, we gathered that the audience would switch off around half way through the video. This meant that our video did not have the ability to retain the audience’s attention as we had hoped for. If you look closer at the graphs, you notice that we were able to hold the audience’s attention for about the first two minutes. This is where most of the running scenes are in our film. The line slowly starts the decline at about 1:15-1:30. After two minutes, it drops heavily below average. I would assume this is because our running scene was too long and didn’t have enough in it to hold the interest of the viewer. To the viewers, this scene probably felt like it was dragging on and was not exciting enough for them. From this information, I know that that scene needed a lot more effects and/or material in it in order to retain their interest. We could’ve possibly shortened the running as well. On the other hand, when the scenes change to the development of the story, we start to gain the audiences’ attention again. For the anger scene and the T-Shirt scene, we manage to retain their attention quite well. From the absolute graph, we can see organic audience retention and the line goes flat. This means that the viewers who got up to this point watched the whole minute. After that, the line starts to grow a little bit before it declines again. Meaning that once the audience saw the character gain the shirt and head to the gym, they already knew the outcome of the story and felt they didn’t need to watch it anymore. From studying these graphs, I can conclude that our video did a poor job in retaining the audiences’ attention. This meant that we could’ve made major changes in shot selection and editing that could’ve helped us maintain our audiences interest.

 

 

 

(EVALUATION TASK 2) How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?

Screen Shot 2016-03-14 at 9.22.01 PM

https://prezi.com/kkroin_gityz/an-effective-combination-of-our-main-product-and-ancilarry-t/#

Prezi presentations can no longer be embedded into wordpress.com. I have taken a screenshot and posted a link to the actual presentation.

 

https://prezi.com/embed/kkroin_gityz/?bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=0&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0&landing_data=bHVZZmNaNDBIWnNjdEVENDRhZDFNZGNIUE43MHdLNWpsdFJLb2ZHanI5dWRlcmZJZjlxK3FxU2lsUDY3SWJCR3pnPT0&landing_sign=aSQvcuxLMs8LFEt6rsAgLdUJV_9WGzBwGElKRXSg9co

(EVALUATION TASK 1) In what way does your media product use, develop, or challenge forms and conventions of real media products?

Screen Shot 2016-03-19 at 5.06.11 PM.png

Our shot is an extreme close-up of the oxygen tank, this shot gives the viewer the idea that this scene is set in a hospital and that the character is under medical care. Thus, it’s effective because from this they know he has survived the accident but is injured. The shot on the right is not an extreme close-up but it has the same effect on the audience. The close-up on the belt lets the audience know that the boxing match between the twins is an important one.

Here is a shot from the beginning of our video where the character is in the hospital. On the right is a shot from Rudimental’s “Waiting All Night” where the character is also in the hospital. They are both effective at showing the characters are in hospital because of the equipment used in mise-en-scene. In our video, we could not get the same kind of machine in the background but we managed to find an oxygen mask which is really effective in creating the setting. We also decided to add a bandage to make our character look more damaged.

On the left is the shot of our second character singing to his reflection in the window. On the right is a shot from Eminem’s “Stan” of Stan looking at himself in the mirror. Although Stan is not singing whereas our character is, they both look very similar. You can see the back/side of the characters head while you see their full reflections.

Here is a longshot from the running scene in our video, and a long shot from Rudimental’s “Free”. In both shots, the characters are mere silhouettes and the rest of the shot includes the scenery. They are both effective in establishing the environment the characters are in.

Here are two subjective shots. The shot that is compared with our video is from Rudimental’s “Powerless”. In both, the shots are taken from a low angle. They are also taken from the view of an object; shot from behind a gate in ours and a shot from behind the ropes of a boxing ring. The difference is in our shot, the camera is focused on the gate whereas in the other shot it is focused on the characters.

Here is another shot that is compared to Rudimental’s “Free”. In both shots are mid-shots that show the character looking at the scenery, at the same time showing the area they are looking upon.

Here are two close-up shots of the characters singing. The shot that I’m comparing with is a shot from Sting’s “Roxanne”. In both shots, you can only see the mouth and nose of the characters. The cameras are focusing on the lips of both characters. Another noticeable thing is the lighting. On both characters, one side of the face is lit up whereas the other is slightly darkened.

These two shots are quite similar in both idea and mise-en-scene. The shot I’m comparing with is from Rudimental’s “Waiting All Night”. In both shots, it shows a disabled character doing pull-ups. In both shots, the wheelchair is present to show that the characters are disabled, which makes an ordinary pull-up look more powerful.

Here is a comparison of a shot from our running scene and a shot from Rudimental’s “Powerless”. In both shots, it uses over-the-shoulder shots of the characters running. Both shots are quite blurry and although you can’t see it in the picture, both shots are quite shaky and bouncy to show the characters running.