WS - Changes made in reaction to Feedback

Whilst most of the feedback we recieved on our second rough cut was very positive, as expected there were little areas that people thought could be improved. We have listened to, and discussed all feedback. Some of the feedback has directly effected our final Production, whilst other bits of feedback have been discussed and we have decided to not act upon it.

The most obvious effect of feedback is that we have eliminated a short passage of the production. This is where Amelia goes to the window and sees the Killer's mask on the window. The reason we have eliminated this is because many people who have viewed our second film believe that this is the killer. This was not the intention. It was meant to simply be a mask hanging on the window to scare the Amelia, and wasn't meant to look like the person was actually there. It has also caused confusion amongst the audience. We are not too disappointed about this because this was a gamble we took when filming because an idea for a false scare with a cat didn't work. Eliminating this scene also means the time of our film, including Company Idents fits into two minutes and thirty seconds.


We have also deleted another shot on the advic of one of our teachers. The shot is just before Carl leaves the house and makes that short scene flow much better.


Our final scene, from when Amelia enters the bathroom until the end, took a lot of consideration and thought. During editing we sought a lot of advic on how our audience thought it worked best. The people we recieved advice from were in our Media Studies group and are, therefore, in our Core Target Audience. From them we recieved advice such as whether or not to use transitions (which in the end, we didn't), whether the scene flowed at a good pace for them, whether the camera shots worked effectively or not, and most importantly, did they feel that the scene overall was scary and an effective ending to our film opening. Views on this can also be seen on the below link.

Audience Feedback on our Second Rough Cut.

Feedback that we considered, but decided against acting upon included views that we could show more of the killer. The main reason wedecided against that is because we wanted to keep the killers idetity as an enigma. Very little is seen of the killer, deliberately, because we believe that the more time the killer spends on screen, the less scary they become. This view was backed up when we asked people in our target audience. For these reasons, we didn't change our production to accomodate this feedback advice.