q3 eval natt
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 1/6
What have you learnedfrom your audience
feedback?Nathaniel J
ohnson
![Page 2: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 2/6
What the audience said
The audience said that theythought it tted in with thethriller genre well.
The ashback scene worked wellat carrying the narrative.
They thought the cli-hanger wasa good ending.
Created good elements of tension.
![Page 3: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 3/6
trengths
!it the genre of thriller. Created elements ofe"citement and tension.
#udience were ke$t hooked and engaged.
%uild u$ of tension was well done. ongcoming baby monitor brought the thrilleras$ect.
Cinematogra$hy was very good and workedwell.
&usic choice was good and sus$enseful.
Camera angles and shots worked well in thehouse.
![Page 4: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 4/6
Weaknesses
• 'arrative was sim$le and audience got lost. torywas sometimes hard to follow and should besim$lied.
• ound editing could have been smoother.
• (ighting )um$ed from dark to light shots suddenly.• *diting wasn+t as smooth as could have been.
#s$ect ration changed form ," to /"0 randomly.• !lash back se1uence caused some confusion.
•
ound of baby monitor sometimes too distorted.• (ighting at beginning was too daark and camera
image was grainy.
![Page 5: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 5/6
What do 2 think of thefeedback?
• 2 agree with the feedbackgoiven3 there were some verygood and well-done as$ects of
the lm which brought abouttension3 sus$ense3 and allhel$ed with the thriller theme.
• 2 also agree with the negativefeedback3 there were some clearas$ects of our lm that could
have been done better3 and were
![Page 6: Q3 Eval Natt](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022051303/5695cfcb1a28ab9b028f9158/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
7/23/2019 Q3 Eval Natt
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/q3-eval-natt 6/6
What would 2 dodierently?
• 2f 2 redid the movie again3 2 would obviously usea real baby 4 allowing us to get more shots ofthe baby. Thisd would hel$ with the narrative3as the audience never really saw the baby and
that could be a $roblem. 2t would also allow forbetter chemistry in the activing between thefather and the son.
• 2 would like to make the movie longer than 5minutes. This would hel$ us t in more of the
narrative and story. 2f more narrative were herethe audience could connect more with thecharacters and we could have created morede$th within the characters3 too.