Post production: draft 2 audience feedback

Having gained audience feedback from our first film trailer draft, we have come to the conclusion that it is vital in assisting us to realise the improvements that need to be made in order to product the best media form we can. The previous survey was carried out on Survey Monkey, and this worked very well as it allowed us to view the results that we had received and analyse them using percentages to show us what the majority of participants thought. We used this  site again, and sent a link to people within in our target audience so that we would gain reliable and valid results. In a similar style to the first survey, we have asked 6 questions that focus on the changes that we have made from draft one to see if we have built on the feedback we originally reviewed.   

The first question that we asked during the survey was "Do you think the trailer has improved? if so why?". The response to this question showed us that 100% of participants agreed with this statement; this question was left open to allow subjective comments to be made based on what they think about the second draft. Many said that the biggest improvement on the first draft was the inclusion of a voiceover throughout the beginning; we felt that some of the narrative needed an extra layer to help the audience understand the concept we are trying to explain, and the has been successful in doing so. A further comment that we received said that we have done well in filling the gap that was located in the beginning stages of the film, as this was something that indicated to the audience that the trailer had not been finished, and therefore made the trailer disjointed and decreased the impact of the tension we were trying to create.

The second question that we asked the audience was "Do you think the voiceover is effective?". Out of the all 9 participants that took part, 2 people felt that the voice over was ineffective; they said this because they thought there was a section within the trailer that had been neglected with the audio and they needed some sort of depth to the audio to accompany the tone change in the trailer. We agree with these comments as we didn't feel the original voiceover had any relation to this section, as this is where the audience sees the reintroduction of the antagonist, so we felt that we would need to record a second transcript that has relevance to the section of the trailer. 7 of the participants agreed that the voice over is effective, as they feel it adds context to the narrative and helps them to understand what is happening.


The third question we asked was "Does the trailer fit in with the thriller genre?". 8 out of the 9 participants felt that the trailer did convey the thriller genre and that they thought it was recognisable when watching the trailer. Most of those who said the trailer did convey, said that they felt this was most prevalent in accident scene where the antagonist gets hit by the car because it reflects tension and suspense, both of which are stereotypical conventions of the genre; they also said that the dark room scene highly conformed to the genre as the red tint made visibility harder, and so they said it build up suspense for the audience. The sub-genre of romance we are trying to convey was noticeable at the beginning where we were portraying a happy relationship; this was the general consensus on how we presented the sub-genre.


As a fourth question we asked the audience "Do you like the dark room scene in the trailer?". From this question, the results showed that 2 people disliked the dark room scene, reason being that they said it felt very long and linear, so didn't reflect a true film trailer. I agree with this statement, so to rectify we are going to try and use more jump cuts to break the footage down. On the other hand, 7 people agreed, and they said that atmosphere that had been created by the darkness and the red filter gave the trailer a tense and suspense feeling, which is what we were trying to achieve; they also said that they felt the red filter was very realistic, and so conveyed the situation with a more sinister tone.

The fifth question we asked the participants of our questionnaire was "Do you think the montage of outdoor shots have negative connotations?". From this response, we had three quarters of the participants say that they didn't think they were effective as the brightness of each shot gave positive connotations rather than negative. Upon looking back at the footage I can understand where that came from because the shots have extremely high exposure to the sun; we filmed these on a very bright day and must have missed a setting. To alter this we will change the brightness and reduce the contrast to give a more sinister feeling.


The final question we asked our audience was "Do you think the diegetic soundtrack is effective in the trailer?". Upon reflection, we realised that the wording of this question was misleading as we were asking the participants to evaluate the diegetic soundtrack; there are multiple sounds in the trailer, and so we were unclear as to which one we meant. Despite this miscommunication, six out of the nine participants felt that the sound was effective as we had two contrasting pieces of music; one was slightly upbeat to represent the happiness in the relationship and the other was sinister and eerie to foreshadow future events. The audience said that this created the desired effect as it invoked tension and suspense.

Overall the audience feedback that have received from the second draft of our trailer has been very valuable, and has given us valid opinions that we will take on board to further improve our trailer as we reach the final stages of editing. Over the course of this coursework, I have come to the realisation that audience feedback is one of the most valuable resources when editing, as it provides different perspectives that may bring ideas never considered. The general consensus has been positive so far.