Level 2 8–11 marks
• Planning and research evidence may be incomplete.
• There is basic research into similar products and a potential target audience.
• There is basic work on shotlists, layouts, drafting, scripting or storyboarding.
• There is basic organisation of actors, locations, costumes or props.
• Time management may not be good.
• There is basic skill in the use of digital technology or ICT in the presentation.
• There are basic communication skills.
• There is a basic level of care in the presentation of the research and planning.
You don't seem to have addressed the layout and spacing issues you referred to in your SWOT! You have been honest however. The prelim was a bit simplistic but you nailed the lip synch apart from the very end. The gratification theory?? These early posts seem to lack depth- the one on history for example contains pictures of timelines but not much explanation from you. Your codes and conventions post and the one on lip synching are very basic. I think your post on codes and conventions should have dealt with the ideology of pop music as opposed to other genres. Your post on gender representation at least dealt with some of the troubling issues around the way men and women are represented. Your focus group post is different but I'm not sure how much you would have learned from the questions and simplistic answers- which is backed up by your follow up post. Similar with your questionnaire. look at what you learned from question 4!! Do you think Todorov really works with music video narrative? Perhaps you could have included some examples in your reception theory post? Some interesting points in your analyses but again there is little depth to these and some sections haven't been covered. Toxic was a little better but you're not really going into enough depth. I hope you learn from the criticisms of previous students work! You seem to have both done representation of gender! You could have dealt with the problems facing MTV and the reasons for these problems. You would have covered more institutions this way! You have shown evidence of planning and these posts are, on the whole better than your research posts. The re-shoots post isn't finished. There is no preview video that I can see! Your director's commentary was good but the video itself made doing an effective commentary difficult. Again audience feedback lacks any depth!Your digipak analysis is just a list of one sentence responses to each of the aspects you've highlighted. When doing website analysis you should be talking about colour, mood, photography etc- not just functionality. Again, there is at least some evidence of planning here.
You've done an awful lot of posts in the blog girls but none of them contain any real substance. You have been thorough but not insightful. You have not been media rich- aside from your director's commentary and focus group it is pretty much all lists and drawings.
Ella 8/20
Olivia 8/20
• Planning and research evidence may be incomplete.
• There is basic research into similar products and a potential target audience.
• There is basic work on shotlists, layouts, drafting, scripting or storyboarding.
• There is basic organisation of actors, locations, costumes or props.
• Time management may not be good.
• There is basic skill in the use of digital technology or ICT in the presentation.
• There are basic communication skills.
• There is a basic level of care in the presentation of the research and planning.
You don't seem to have addressed the layout and spacing issues you referred to in your SWOT! You have been honest however. The prelim was a bit simplistic but you nailed the lip synch apart from the very end. The gratification theory?? These early posts seem to lack depth- the one on history for example contains pictures of timelines but not much explanation from you. Your codes and conventions post and the one on lip synching are very basic. I think your post on codes and conventions should have dealt with the ideology of pop music as opposed to other genres. Your post on gender representation at least dealt with some of the troubling issues around the way men and women are represented. Your focus group post is different but I'm not sure how much you would have learned from the questions and simplistic answers- which is backed up by your follow up post. Similar with your questionnaire. look at what you learned from question 4!! Do you think Todorov really works with music video narrative? Perhaps you could have included some examples in your reception theory post? Some interesting points in your analyses but again there is little depth to these and some sections haven't been covered. Toxic was a little better but you're not really going into enough depth. I hope you learn from the criticisms of previous students work! You seem to have both done representation of gender! You could have dealt with the problems facing MTV and the reasons for these problems. You would have covered more institutions this way! You have shown evidence of planning and these posts are, on the whole better than your research posts. The re-shoots post isn't finished. There is no preview video that I can see! Your director's commentary was good but the video itself made doing an effective commentary difficult. Again audience feedback lacks any depth!Your digipak analysis is just a list of one sentence responses to each of the aspects you've highlighted. When doing website analysis you should be talking about colour, mood, photography etc- not just functionality. Again, there is at least some evidence of planning here.
You've done an awful lot of posts in the blog girls but none of them contain any real substance. You have been thorough but not insightful. You have not been media rich- aside from your director's commentary and focus group it is pretty much all lists and drawings.
Ella 8/20
Olivia 8/20
Comments
Post a Comment