Question 3

After the deadline for editing our music video’s the class watched back everyone’s music video to give the groups feedback of how well we did and what our strong and weak parts were of our music videos. This was very interesting as we could compare how well we did against other people and it was a chance to see what we could get over all by filling in a questionnaire and putting a mark down what we would give them with the marking criteria in mind. The audience age was from 17 to 18 and was a mix gendered.  

Overall I’m happy with the feedback we got as it was mostly positive comments back. I was worried with what we might have got back; as I felt, as it was our class marking it they might be really harsh. But they all said similar things and gave pretty similar marks, which was good as everyone noised the same thing and was all on the same level. It was more over average, which is what we wanted.

They said the music video was

-Suitable for the song we did, as the conventions related to the genre and it suited the mood of the music being slow.

- Appropriate actors cast and costume.

- Good lighting

- Good locations fitted with the genre and story

-Kept you interested by having narrative and performance based.

-Shots were steady

-Well framed shots

-The effects were well done

The number one thing that people loved was the green screen effect of the paper being set on fire with the moving image. They weren’t sure how it work and said it looked quite professional and didn’t look tacky.

The negative feedback we got which I do agree on is:

-Some of the lip synching issue being out of synch

-Our actor’s hair being in his face too much was distracting and couldn’t see him singing.

-Shorter shots needed to keep attention going

-Actors to look more comfortable.

-More close up shots

I think we would have overcome more of these issues if we had followed the shot list better as it had more ideas in there we would have had more different shots. But I feel we did the best we could do and our feedback has been more positive.