Audience feedback was a very important part of my production, and, either through offhand comments from friends, or feedback to improve from my teacher, it ended up contributing a substantial amount to my end product, with many improvements between my rough cut and my final cut coming as a response to feedback.
My target audience was different than most, as instead of playing it safe and targeting ages 16-20, like plenty of my contemporaries, I targeted around 18+. More specifically, I targeted those within BC1C2, which would be people within the middle class. More specifically, I focused on those with a University education, however I also wished to target somewhat lower, as my short film does include some slang and crude humour which would appeal to a larger audience.
This target audience had the initially unforeseen benefit of putting both of my teachers within my target audience, and it was this feedback which benefited me the most. For example, it was due to this feedback that I realised the audio needed significant work. Originally, I neglected to use a mic, and this meant that everytime Elena was next to the road, or in the wind, it became harder to understand her. Thanks to this feedback, I knew it was a significant issue, and paid detailed attention to the role of sound within the final piece, notably by making Elena re-record all her dialogue, dubbing in the voice later on, which required close attention, yet ended up making the final piece as professional as it was.
Thanks to feedback, I also learned about the importance of using good quality pictures within montages. In my rough cut, during the montages I merely found examples of pictures that would work thematically. With the feedback, I learned that ensuring the pictures are high enough resolution would really add a degree of professionalism to the final product, as following my finding and inserting better images, my final piece does maintain a further professional demeanor.
Feedback also allowed me to create multiple versions. After my rough cut, I got feedback stating that the copious amount of swearing I included within my script was somewhat of a risk to include in my final cut, as examiners may take offense to it. However, I believed that the swearing was somewhat necessary in order to fit my basis. I ended up creating two versions, in order to see which would be funnier or work better. Most feedback I’ve gotten however states that the censored version is funnier. I am happy I have two versions, however, as that makes the final product more believable as an actual piece broadcast on TV.
I also learned that I need to be more through in my rewatching. While showing someone within my audience my Rough cut, it was mentioned to me that within the scene where Elena is introducing Letchworth as the next Focal point, camera equipment is within frame. I managed to crop it out of my final cut, however this being pointed out meant that I’ve learned it best to let some other people watch through a rough cut, in order to see if there are any problems anyone noticed.
To conclude, I learned a great degree from audience feedback, with a great degree of professionalism within my final product only being there as a result of me following the feedback. I must state that I am very happy with how well I followed this aspect.
I decided I would tackle this question a different way to that which I usually do. Instead of playing it safe with one method, I decided that because my voice doesn't lend well to voice over I would use a text to speech editor, then I thought it would be best to edit it with the points I am making, meaning I ended up using Cyberlink PowerDirector to create this. There are clear flaws, such as the text to speech software misprouncing some words said, hence including the transcription in bold, however I believe that, aside from that hiccup, this was an interesting and honestly fun way of getting the question across, so I am broadly happy with this question.
No comments:
Post a Comment