The CakeWalkVodcast Pilot Arrives!
Well, finally it has happened – the CakeWalkVodcast Pilot is finished!
It was filmed back in November (as you will be able to tell from my Movember Moustache) and there is no reason why it should have taken so long to put together.
No reason, that is, except the complexity of life and editing itself. Hey ho. This is why the Spekti Vidjablowg has suffered a bit this past week, but I consider it a sacrifice worth making – my regular rambles will be back up asap.
I am still not entirely happy with the finished product, even accepting the normal trial-and-error nature of a pilot.
I could say I ran out of time with it, but it is more accurate to say I ran out of patience.
Anyway, here it is, for better or worse- CakeWalkVodcast: Mulled Wine Cake!
Okay- feedback lines now open!
Very eager to hear your views- here are some of my reflections on it.
Perhaps a little bit of background about the filming of this may well help explain some of the following- first, on the day we had planned to be walking (with a friend who is a dedicated chocolate enthusiast and contributor to the Fat Chick’s Guide to Real Food on tumblr (which you can find here: http://fatchicksguide.tumblr.com/) it was grey and raining heavily, despite mild weather predictions. There was no way we could either take the camera or have a nice time, so it was off.
We had to wait a little more than a week before another window came up, and we took it, but this time without a ‘guest’- fate graced us with an absolutely gorgeous winter afternoon, but it was still very chilly and getting dark and at the end we more or less wanted to get home.
There are positives and negatives in the final product, so…
Things That Need Improving
- It is FAR too long – I think at most it should be 20 minutes long, 10 minutes for the cake, 10 mins for the walk
- There is far too much waffling in the cooking stage- its fun to throw in a bit of banter, but too much waiting makes it drag on
- The title sequence is okay, but not really inventive or engaging enough, IMO
- The position of the camera is wrong because my body blocks the food – it should be placed with the food between the camera and presenter
- The sound varies wildly, both in and out. Inside I kept on having to move the mic, and my own position relative to it, for different shots, and outside I forgot to turn the external mic on when we were discussing the cake, hence the subtitles. Talking of which…
- There’s not enough discussion on the cake – its flavour, texture, keeping power, etc. were very lightly touched on, and people will want to know! (I hope)
Things to Add
- An recipe – of course we do go through the ingredients, and we can continue doing what we did for this one and include a .pdf file of the recipe on the notes, but having a few seconds of it on-screen would be useful for people watching.
- A map of the walk – the idea was always to encourage people to try walks for themselves and see a bit of the area. Since this walk was fairly close to our house it was perhaps a good thing not to include it for privacy
- A ’round up’ at the end – this I feel is the biggest omission; there was no discussion at all about the walk and and a ‘goodbye’, which would have rounded things up nicely
Things I Like and Want to Keep:
- The theme tune
- The logo – this very cute thing was designed by Britta, but I think it need tidied up a bit more for computer use
- The ‘stings’ and associated animations
- The banter on the walk
- The background music (but vary it a bit)
- The judging cards (but filmed better so you can actually see the numbers properly)
So the question is, what next?
Well, we will need some feedback from those who have been kind enough to show their support so far.
Also there will be a matter of discussion with Miss Britta- despite being (I think) a charming and talented presenter she is not comfortable in front of the camera and so doing she may not want to do what she did for this one again.
All in all it will probably be another month at least before the CakeWalkVodcast really gets on its feet. When it does, there is the question of regularity. We will need to arrange walks (and people to do them with) quite a way in advance and, when it comes to putting it together, although the baking part of the Vodcast will be fairly controllable the amount and quality of the footage from the walk will always vary, which makes editing time consuming.
Given these and other logistical constraints at most it would have to be a fortnightly ‘broadcast’…unless we got paid for it, of course. Here’s hoping!
Looking forward to hearing from you!
Bye!
– Spekti Jim
What is your damage?
Hey all!
Having watched my brother slaughter his way through minor enemies in Castlevania, I decided to make today’s blog and vidjablowg about the disturbing presence of what is known as ‘collateral damage’ in our fictional media.
The extent to which was as an audience have become ‘okay’ with the “hero” having a license, nay even a right, to cause terrible acts of destruction is kind of at odds with our belief in their morality.
We have come to accept certain things as bloodless and therefore acceptable acts – the overturning of a lorry, the explosion of a building, crashing through shops and houses in a free running sequence. But in real life these events are far from bloodless, and even if by a miracle one of them was, you always end up with people’s propetry being trashed and their livelihoods ruined.
Two scenes come to mind from recent films, one I dislike and one I think is actually pretty good. First Transformers – the point at which I knew the film was morally reprehensible rather than just blundering, brain-crushingly bad (if you like that film I’m sorry, as yet medical science has no cure for Motor-Moron Disease) is in a sequence where Optimus Prime and Megatron are fighting. You get a glimpse of a tower block and, crucially, inside the tower block, of the office workers being buffeted around as a wayward blow from the fighting robo-titans knows the building in two. They scream and panic, unable to resist gravity as they slip to the side. Moments later, their cries of anguish still in our ears, the building topples and falls. We have witnessed those people die. To be honest, I am on the side of the military on this one (a very rare occurence): Autobots or Decepticons, get rid of the whole load of them, they are too damn dangerous.
Next is a scene from Iron Man 2. The titular steely superhero, pursued by baddies, races through a carpark and sets all the car alarms off with his intense speed. Moments later the baddies fly by, smashing every car window to pieces. At this point I remembered when, as a nipper, my parents would leave me in the car whilst they got out and paid the parking money. I would wait, frustrated but safe, until they got back. Iron Man flies above my head, I am deafened by noises…but that doesn’t cause a problem for long, because then baby me dies, razored to death by flying glass.
If any single car had someone in it, Iron Man’s choice of direction has pretty much killed them, and if they are all empty, congratulations!You just destroyed the cars people probably worked years to earn. Well done hero.
Now I know that I, being a film nerd, am wont to analyse this more than others. But the problem is, no one has even raised the issue in mainstream film yet. No one has brought it to people’s attention so they can make a decision for themselves. I’m not saying we have to get rid of the explosions and the gunfire, just be a little less witless about how we approach them, maybe add a little realism to it.
The best example I’ve ever seen is (no, not Austin Powers) in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil. Sam, the hero, is escaping in a truck. He pulls off some heroic (but highly inadvisable) driving, causing one of the pursuing vehicles to explode. He whoops in excited elation as they get away. Stopping to look back, he sees a person emerging from the vehicle, writhing and covered in flames. His face falls as he realises what he has done.
(Go to 3:30 if you can’t be bothered to wait)
And as Mr. Punch says, ‘that’s the way to do it’.
If my griping has depressed you, have some more humourous griping here!
Spekti’s Vidjablowg 8: Evil Collateral
(—–WATCH THIS SPACE—–)
Make way for film!
– Spekti Jim
“What Price A Critic?, A Comedie In Four Partes” or “The Useless Old Duffers”
So, critics, yeah?
What are they all about? Eh? What? Eh?
This stems from a friend of mine remarking on the certified ‘Fresh’ rating of ‘Transofrmers 3’ (90%)by punters on Rotten Tomatoes, compared to the considerably less complimentary reviews by critics.
All five of my personalitiessss think thisssss movie sucksssssss!
This led to a question on what use critics are, if they no longer truly reflect the wants and needs of the people they are advising. After all, that’s what a film critic is for, isn’t it?
They tell you whether you’ll like something on not, based on their own analysis, and you don’t waste your money if you can help it.
Well, sort of.
My method with critics, again from another piece of wisdom from my Dad, is to find one whose opinion, in general, matches my own, and then use them as a gauge.
I ended up finding the BBC’s resisdent bequiffed ranty flappy-handed curmudgeon, Mark Kermode. Bizarrely enough I first discovered him (and his brilliantly angry and acerbic Pirates of the Caribbean Reviews) whilst searching for videos of Adam Buxton’s purposely horrible faux-media titbag Ken Korda…though I’m sure there was no insult intended by YouTube by linking them together.
As soon as I heard The Good Doctor (as he is known to fans) on the Radio Five Live show he shares with Simon Mayo, laying the smack down on twaddle like Pirates 2 with one hand and lifting Terry Gilliam and David Lynch to Godhood with the other, I knew I’d found my match.
He is not, as he admits freely, in any way populist, and openly mocked the idea that when Jonathan Ross was leaving the ‘Film’ show that he would replace him for exactly that reason. Love him or hate him, he stands by his guns and does it with personality too. But what use are they?
1) Critics are not ‘real people’ – and a good thing too!
Go out and try talking to a ‘real person’ about film. Seriously.
Did you do it? Okay, now you know why its not a good idea.
After even one lecture on Film, you will find it impossible to view film like a normal person any more. Keeping company with the phrase ‘mise en scene’ for half an hour will put you above lesser mortals and make you analyse films more deeply. And so all good film critics have a knowledge of film way, way beyond that of their own audience.
Bless 'em, they think its really in the room.
The best of them know how to present their opinions and analysis of a film in such a way that their audience can understand it easily and take away the pertinent information.
Also, they will know their audience well enough that their opinion will be taken well and in the spirit in which it was delivered.
However, they aren’t ‘real people’. And they can’t switch off their own sensibilities. For this reason they may be compelled to call out trash or defend unpopular movies.
But we ought to be glad that they aren’t real people most of the time, even if their expetise lead them to disagree, otherwise their reviews would be along the lines out: ‘Nah, that was crap wunnit. No tits or nuffin.’
2) All Opinions are Equal, But Some Are Entertainment
You don’t have to listen to someone when they say a film is lousy, or when they harp on it.
And truth be told, whatever they may be, if opinions are delivered in a boring and uninspired way, we won’t listen to them. We don’t listen to or read critics for their opinions, we do it for their entertainment value. They are a diverting sideshow to the massive media circus which attends any big film event, like the comedy tent at a music festival. Critics who are allowed to speak at length should be entertaining. In fact even within the confines of a 50 word-a-film newspaper spot, critics usually find a way to be quite clever and creative about their reviews, especially the negative ones.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
3) All Publicity is Good Publicity
Why does a radio station or a newspaper or a broadcaster employ a critic at all?
As organisations, do they care about whether their audience saves money on bad films? Probably not. So why do it?
Well, because they all make money advertising films. And increasing their presence with a review slot only adds the exposure.
You can see a gigantic double page spread for a film on one page of a newspaper, and a critics review panning it the next.
On the aforementioned Kermode and Mayo film review, they always give the opening times and chart position of movies and often interview actors from films which have received poor reviews, most recently for ‘Horrible Bosses’ when Kevin Spacey and Jennifer Aniston (who Dr K regularly mocks for having a “televisual face”) appeared in a pre-recorded segment with Simon just a few short minutes before their new magnum opus was slammed as terrible and unfunny. Who cares? They did their bit, got paid, got out of there, fulfilled the contract. And you can bet someone somewhere went ‘screw the review! That was KEVIN FREAKIN’ SPACEY!’ or alternatively ‘Wow, I’ll avoid that. But I didn’t know Transformers 3 was still on! Hell yeah!’
Bad reviews may not significantly reduce the numbers, but there is a chance they will increase them, much to critics chagrin. And thus they earn their crust.
4) A Critic is There To Find Treasures, Not Take Out The Trash
However entertaining the bad film reviews are, very few people, ‘real’ or crazy film buffs, want to hear about bad films. They want to watch good ones. So a critic’s job is to put you on to things that you wouldn’t have heard otherwise, not to stop you going to things you see on every billboard. As Dr. K says on a recent blog entry, there is no way you can bring down a big movie like Transformers, because when a certain amount of money is poured into it it becomes an ‘event’ and inescapable. I go past a transformers billboard nearly every day…on the side of a McDonalds.
So the disparity between a popular film’s ‘popular’ reception and critical reception doesn’t matter; what matters is the relationship between a lesser known film’s popular reaction and the critical one.
Well, that’s my opinion.
Feel free to ignore it.
Make way for film!
-Spekti Jim
SpektiJim 