final refection

Finishing this project honestly feels like a huge relief. It took many days of planning, filming, fixing mistakes, and stressing over little things. There were times when it felt like we would never get everything done and would fall behind, especially when people got sick or scenes took longer than we expected. But we kept pushing through and managed to finish with some time to spare.

I learned a lot while working on this, but the biggest lesson was realizing how much effort goes into creating something that is only two minutes long. I can’t imagine how stressful it must be to make a full movie with sets and all that. Every shot, every sound, and every small detail mattered. I spent so much time trying to make everything look right that I began to notice things I had never cared about before.

 It was stressful, but it also made the final product feel worthwhile. Now that it is all finished, I feel proud of what we created. We actually pulled it off, despite all the chaos. Looking back, the stress shows how much we cared about making it good. I am just glad it is done, and I can finally relax a bit. And go on spring brake.

Thanks so much for this it was fun while it lasted and peace...... wowowo

Post with links to CCR’s and film opening

(ccr 1 and 2) 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LIbaekSn6sMU_JgbhnVnBoETxonSxFio/view?usp=sharing

(ccr 3 and 4)

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bjQM44DqwLbNFuGHHOwp2NPRMM5-JzmC/view?usp=sharing

(film opening)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18cvwbC4hrgdzcOenIX3RldDWVZ0CIoi2/view?usp=sharing

ccr editing

 

For my editing part of CCRs, it was Questions 1 and 2 that took the most work. Since my dad was the one conducting my interview, I had to edit it in a way that it would sound smooth and seamless. I removed all the parts where my dad and I messed up and made it sound like we were having a smooth conversation. For the introduction of my interview, I decided to add the sound of clapping that we used for our two-minute film opening. This was basically to give it that feel of actually being a show and opening for people. 

For Questions 3 and 4, it was way easier editing-wise since it was literally just making a simple PowerPoint through Canva. I basically talked in front of the computer and recorded it. I then removed the beginning and end of it. There was really nothing much to edit since it was all laid out for me through my slides. I basically just made sure my voice was in sync with what was happening on the screen and that it wasn’t too long. Compared to my interview, it was basically no editing at all.

ccr production

 For my CCRs, I used two different formats. Each format had its own little setup. For Questions 1 and 2, I used a Canva presentation and talked through the presentation myself. This was quite easy because I simply had to organize the slides and make sure everything was the same as I was talking about. Questions 1 and 2 dealt with conventions and audience, so the Canva style was quite appropriate as it was very simple and clean without the hassle of filming.

For Questions 3 and 4, I interviewed my dad, and this was quite a production. I wrote the script myself and made a couple of changes to make it look more real. Then I arranged things around my dining room to make it look like a real set. Once I was satisfied with the look, my brother recorded the entire thing for us. My dad wore his suit and of course we had a mog on the desk. It was quite appropriate as it looked like the style of our film opening, and the conversation style was easier to explain my production skills.

This is the set. In my living room

ccr production

production

For my CCRs I decided to go with two different formats. Questions 1 and 2 I’m answering in interview format with my dad. We decided he would play the interviewer in our opening for our film, so it just made sense to keep that same format. It just flows more natural and allows me to explain my decisions like an actual conversation rather than simple answer prompts.

For Questions 3 and 4, I’m switching to a simple PowerPoint where I talk through the slides. These questions are more about my production skills and the technology I used, so the PowerPoint Iam doing it on Canva thought because it looks more professional. format makes it easier to explain everything clearly. It’s straight to the point and lets me break down what I learned and how I used different tools during the project.

https://ifilmthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Production.jpg

ccr question 4

 

• How did you integrate technologies – software, hardware and online – in this project?

Tools and Technologies Used
Software, Hardware, and Internet
We utilized hardware, software, and internet tools to complete our project. As for hardware, we used the podcast station as it contained the cameras, microphones, and the large orb light that allowed us to film the interview scene seamlessly. The other scenes only used our personal phones which allowed us to easily get quick shots and various angles.

When it came to software, iMovie was primarily what I used. I edited the lighting/brightness of the scenes and completed them within iMovie. Canva was used to make our credits and production logo more aesthetically pleasing. I used Mixkit to find sound effects such as keyboard typing and clapping to make the interview feel more like an in person studio session. We wanted to use Videobolt to animate our logo but we did not end up using it in our final product.

We also used internet tools to complete our product. YouTube videos were used in our glove scene to allow our space to look like an actual lab. Google Docs allowed us to collaboratively write and edit our script. And finally, my blog is what we used to present our project to Cambridge. Everything we used worked together to make our project feel more professional than just filmed clips compiled together.

script

For this project my production skills got a lot better because I had to actually do everything myself. I learned how to plan filming days, set up the podcast studio, and make sure the mise‑en‑scène looked right. I also improved at writing dialogue that sounds real and using things like silence or slow zooms to make moments feel heavier. Editing is where I grew the most, especially matching lighting, fixing brightness, and adding sound to build tension.

For the technology part, we used the podcast studio cameras, the mics, and the big globe light for the interview scene, and our phones for the other shots. I used iMovie to edit and fix the lighting, Canva for the credits and the logo, and Mixkit for sound effects. We were going to use Videobolt but didn’t end up needing it. Online tools helped too—YouTube for the microscope videos in the glove scene, Google Docs for the script, and my blog to show the final project to Cambridge.

ccr question 3

• How did your production skills develop throughout this project?

Hi, blog welcome back. 

I will be answering this question simply by walking outside.

Honestly, this project pushed my production skills way further than I expected because I had to dive in and do everything myself. Right off the bat, I got better at planning and leading my group. In the beginning, we were a bit all over the place, but I figured out how to set filming days, organize props, and keep everyone on the same page. Even picking locations and tweaking things in the podcast studio taught me to think ahead. Set design was another area where I grew a lot. Every time we filmed, I’d move stuff around, try out different angles, and mess with the background until it felt right. That glove scene, for example, really showed me how tiny details like tossing in YouTube microscope videos, medicine bottles, or using darker lighting can totally change how real a scene feels. Before doing this, I barely knew what mise-en-scène even meant, but now I get how much it shapes the mood. Scriptwriting got more interesting for me, too. I started writing dialogue that actually sounds like how people talk. I also learned how to use silence, slow zooms, or just a look to make a moment hit harder, instead of packing in a bunch of lines. But editing is where I improved the most. Patching the clips together, I noticed right away how lighting can make or break a scene. Some shots were way brighter than others, so I picked up tricks to match the brightness and keep things looking smooth. I threw in sound effects from Mixkit, used Canva for the credits, and all that made the opening look way more put together. I got the hang of pacing, picking the best takes, and setting the right mood for the interview scene. Working with my group taught me a lot, too. We split up editing Jalin took care of credits, Santi worked on the main sequence, and I focused on lighting and mood. Watching their process helped me get better at working with others and giving feedback. At the end of the day, I went from knowing almost nothing to actually understanding how planning, set design, writing, sound, and editing all fit together to make something that works.

 

editing

Lighting and Visual Editing

For the editing part of our 2-minute opening I focused on making the lighting in the interview scene look good. When I put the clips together some shots were brighter than others. It made the cuts look weird. So I used iMovie to make the brightness the same across all shots. I also picked shots where the light hit Dr. Mueller on because it made him look stressed which fit the moment before he reveals the medicine is deadly.

Things like making the brightness a bit at the end helped make the silence feel heavier.

Canva Work

I also did the background sounds and outside audio. I used Mixkit to get typing sounds and clapping so the interview felt like it was happening in a studio. We also used Canva for some elements like organizing the credits and making sure the text looked clean and matched the tone of the film. Adding these details made the opening feel more polished and realistic.

Group Editing Roles

We split the editing work, between the three of us. Jalin worked on the opening credits. Helped design them in Canva. Santi focused on putting all the clips choosing the best takes and making the whole opening flow smoothly. My job was to fix the lighting add effects and help shape the mood of the interview scene with Dr. Mueller. All of our edits combined to make the final opening feel tense and dramatic.

Hi, So we finished the 2 minuet film opening a few days ago and we are finished with editing the reason I am doing this post this week is because Jain was sick.

| Mixkit -sound effects

ccr question 2

 

• How does your product engage with audiences and how would it be distributed as a real media text?

 For our film opening the main way we tried to get the audience into it was by throwing them straight into the problem. The second Dr. Mueller says his medicine is deadly, the whole vibe changes. You don’t even need a long setup because right away, you are like ok something is seriously wrong. That’s how mystery films work, something goes bad fast and the audience has to figure it out, and we did that without even realizing at first. 

The drama part also helps keep people watching. The slow zooms, the stillness, the lighting. When I was editing, I noticed how the lighting literally changed the whole mood. If one clip was brighter than the next it felt weird, so keeping it consistent made the tension build up more. When the light hits Dr. Mueller straight on it makes him look stressed and exposed, and that pulls the audience in because you can tell something big is coming. 

Another thing that helps is the characters feeling like real people. Maverick is just a normal guy, nothing crazy in his past, no dramatic trauma. That actually makes him easier to relate to because he reacts how a regular person would. Dr. Mueller also isn’t some evil villain; he’s just someone who messed up and can’t handle the guilt. That makes the audience feel bad for him instead of just hating him. All of that makes the story feel more real and keeps people watching. 

For distribution, since this is a short film opening and a student project, the most realistic way it would be shared is online. Stuff like YouTube or Netflix is where most short films end up, and it’s easy for people to watch and share. It could also be put into student film festivals or local competitions because that’s what a lot of people do with projects like this. Social media would help too; short clips of the glove scene or the moment he reveals the drug is deadly would get attention on TikTok or Instagram. 

And since this is for Cambridge, it would also be “distributed” through this blog and the CCR, because that’s where the examiner sees everything. So it fits the whole purpose of the project. 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DClJUemDJz0/maxresdefault.jpg

Answering the questions

The way I will be answering this question and the first one will be on an interview with my dad because he's the interviewer in the film. 

script

Dad: Alright Sam, first question. How does your film use or challenge conventions, and how does it represent people or issues?

You: So we mixed mystery and drama without even thinking about it at first. In mystery movies something usually goes wrong right away, and we did the same thing with Dr. Mueller saying his drug is deadly. That sets the tone fast. For the drama side we used slow zooms, still shots, and the lighting to make everything feel heavy. The lighting was a big deal because if one shot was brighter than the next it killed the mood, so keeping it dark and even made the tension build up.

We also changed some conventions. Most drama movies have a main character with some crazy backstory or trauma, but Maverick is just a normal dude. No dramatic past, nothing wild. We wanted the focus to be the problem, not his life story. And in mystery films there’s usually a mentor or someone helping the main character figure stuff out, but we didn’t do that. Dr. Mueller basically leaves Maverick alone with the problem, which raises the stakes.

For representation we wanted everyone to feel like real people. Maverick is just a regular guy who reacts how a normal person would. Dr. Mueller isn’t some evil scientist, he’s just someone who messed up and can’t handle the guilt. And the interviewer is just a professional doing his job. No stereotypes, just people dealing with a bad situation.(target audience)

Dad: Alright, second question. How does your film engage the audience, and how would it be distributed if it were real?

You: The main way we pull the audience in is by dropping them straight into the problem. The second Dr. Mueller says the medicine is deadly, the whole vibe changes. You don’t need a long setup because right away you know something is seriously wrong. The lighting and the stillness help too. When the light hits Mueller straight on he looks stressed and exposed, and that makes you feel like something big is coming.

The characters help keep people watching because they feel real. Maverick reacts like a normal person, not some superhero. Dr. Mueller isn’t a villain, he’s just someone who made a mistake. That makes the whole thing feel more believable.

For distribution, since it’s a student film opening, it would mostly be online. Stuff like YouTube or maybe short film festivals. Clips of the glove scene or the moment he admits the drug is deadly would do good on TikTok or Instagram. And for school, it gets “distributed” through the blog and the project stuff we turn in, since that’s how Cambridge sees it.