We screened our horror trailer to the media class and asked them to give feedbackon it, firstly based on whether it worked as a good horror trailer, and secondly if it worked as a teaser trailer.
The audience said that our our trailer worked well as a horror text:
-The shadows were good
-It was filmed from some good strange angles
-A wide range of shots was used
-Good mise-en-scene used to create the idea of isolation
-Good use of white flash
-The heartbeat sound used
-Good lighting used
-The idea of the final girl
Although they also criticised it as a horror text:
-No dialogue
-A locked tension, so no real climax
-Inconsistency of font and effects on intertitles
-Some didnt like the hearbeat sound
They said it worked well as a teaser trailer:
-Started slow and then built up
-The heartbeats in the soundtrack
-Didnt give too much away
Although it was criticised as a teaser trailer:
-The music didnt really build up, bangs in the music would have made it more effective
-The same parts were shown a couple of times, wasted time in the short trailer
-not much plot
Having taken the audiences research into consideration we did a 'second cut' to our product and edited it to fit the horror genre better. This should be an improvement from the 'first cut' so using audience feedback is a good idea as it gets the point of view of many more people than just our group who made it.
Portfolio Sections
- A. Final product: main product (1)
- B. Final product: ancillary tasks (1)
- C.1 Evaluation question 1 (1)
- C.2 Evaluation question 2 (1)
- C.3 Evaluation question 3 (1)
- C.4 Evaluation question 4 (1)
- D. Appendix 1: research for main product (3)
- E. Appendix 2: pre-production planning for main product (2)
Showing posts with label C.3 Evaluation question 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C.3 Evaluation question 3. Show all posts
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)