Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:23 PM
Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:22 AM
Well it looks nice. It feels active. And you're sort of mixing up the shot selection so it's not entirely repetitive. There's kind of a limit to how much it can be critiqued without knowing what the context will be. But looking at it as a straight presentation, here are a few thoughts:
1) For the most part, the text items that you're featuring (basically the content, in this case) are unfortunately very difficult to make out. They're obscured, cropped, and available on-screen for very little time. And in lots of instances, that's fine, but as first time viewers, we're not even aware of what we're watching yet, because you've given us no indication (there's a logo for a publisher at the end, but that's it, and y'know... it's at the end). So when given pieces of words, we're not sure what we should be guessing at, and even if we guess right, we don't understand the point. The point may come at the end, but by then it's kind of too late, unless you're counting on repeat viewing, which kind of leads to the next point...
2) What's the point of all of this stuff? Why do I want to watch this? That's not to say that it's not good, but there just isn't much to it. I don't know that I'd be compelled to watch it a second time if I didn't have to. Formally speaking, it's well made, but it's not intriguing. It's literally just shiny stuff flying around. It's passively nice to look at, but it does nothing to engage anyone actively. In reality, you can kind of engage people with beauty shots, but that beauty has to be something that means something to those people. As cliches go, a well framed nature scene or a glistening drop of sweat down a woman's back are examples of beauty shots that are pretty boring, but are still typically more engaging than generic chrome/glass shapes because they have some meaning to the audience.
3) The edit has a nice energy to it, but the cuts feel a little sloppy in some sections. And that means that I can tell you're cutting for a reason, which is good, but that you just need to go in and fine tune those cuts by slipping them a few frames. Or maybe it's the vimeo playback that's screwing it up. I guess it's up to you to take a look. But that's one of those things that's easy to fix and makes a big improvement with little effort.
Posted 27 March 2012 - 09:20 PM
1)here is the context: the client wanted to highligt its various activities by the small pink pictograms and not by the text items. The objective was not to give all the keys during the movie, but to bring the audience to see the movie until the end, and then discover at the end what we're talking about. The choice of the audio joined this idea. It sounds "investigation & tension" in order to intrigue...
I guess that the "effect" didn't produce what it was supposed to…
2) I agree that the movie need more sense, you're right "it's literally just shiny stuff flying around"
3)For the edit you're right to, I'll fix it this evening.
I have great difficulty working when my client has very specific ideas of what he wants. Technically I'm not so good. But when I start from a white sheet I get most of the time to propose a simple and powerful concept film, I think like for this one wich is for a security computer company :
Edited by AMAL, 27 March 2012 - 09:56 PM.
Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:56 AM
Same goes for this Evidian clip. I have absolutely no idea what this company is, other than part of the Bull Group, about which I'm also completely uninformed. I don't even know what "Free up time for patient" means (is it a typo?). I have a myriad of conceptual associations to 1s and 0s, but that unfortunately narrows down the meaning of the spot to "technology something-or-other". My educated guess is that Evidian does computing, or communications routing, or some highly technical digital thing, but that describes like 5,000,000. So all I can hope for is that this piece is meant to be seen in some context that will make it all coherent, and specific. Again, is this a youtube ad I have to watch before I get to see a CNet review on a new asus logic board? Is it looping on the monitor of an invasive full body scanner at the airport? What is it? Where does it go? Who sees it, and when?
In terms of communication, the Licorn piece actually does a better job, if only because the words that we can read are literally TELLING us things. They're still pretty uninformative things, however, and your icons don't help that (a star, a tv/monitor, a mobile phone, three bars, the facebook logo?) Much more importantly, if you're going to use visual media to communicate stuff to an audience, what's the point if you rely on the content of the words while treating the entire visual aspect as throwaway material? I mean, you understand that, but it's kind of worth repeating.
Basically, what I'm saying is that the viewing experience of this spot goes something like:
Mirror chunks explode. Chunks float around. Obscured words. Feels stylish like a cosmetics ad. Facebook. Online. Print. Facebook. Mobile phone. Com? Chunks come together to make a logo. Licorn Publishing. End.
Only on my 7th or 8th viewing did I bother to read the small type under the Licorn logo, which informed me that it's a french interactive agency. And that makes the preceding buzzwords make a lot more sense, but it's a problem if the lynchpin of the entire thing is the minuscule type buried under a gigantic logo.
All things considered, they're both aesthetically appealing, which is something to be proud of. I Just think that unless we're missing some crucial contextual clues, your strategy in each piece probably needs some work.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users