This was my agenda for the meeting:
The team answered that they thought it was okay, and they thought that the mark of 62% was a good mark. I spoke honestly and said that I was disappointed with it.
I expressed how disappointed I was with the film that we showed because it seemed rushed and amateurish and I was upset that, of all the footage that we had to that point, we seemed to be using shaky and out of focus footage.
During the edit process Hannah and I had asked the editor to use better versions of the footage from different takes that we had done. We knew we had better quality footage than had been used, and couldn't understand why the substandard stock was being included in the edit.
I stated that at this stage we should be producing work that we are proud of and that reaches broadcast quality. I said that our film was nowhere near that standard and that I thought that we had been damned lucky to get the mark that we had. I reminded them that 62% is not a good mark.
We discussed this further and all agreed that the film did seem rushed and 'cobbled together' and we all agreed that we should be thankful that we got as good a mark for it as we did.
This one agenda item took over the rest of the meeting and we agreed that Hannah, Luke and myself would continue to work on the two minute while Joe worked on the ten minute film.
We agreed to hunt for the better footage that Hannah, Jacob and I knew had been filmed but not used, and Joe agreed to assemble the ten minute using the good footage.
I had a suspicion at this stage, that Joe had not been through all the files of footage, and had just used whatever came to hand first. We thought it strange that a lot of good visuals were being ignored.
These were the notes that I made about the conversation as it happened:
not acceptable
not professional
transmission deadline
four x filming
need to be logging as we go along
share workload
establish method of working, structured, or creative licence
No comments:
Post a Comment