1. Media
Presentation
Scott Barrass
Adam Bennett
Jan Labro

2. Sam Terry’s Research and
Planning
 His research was simple basic,
yet he knew how to analyse
media context.
 He only commented on one
thing about both media
products – so he didn’t look
into them in detail.
 His Planning again is simple; it
just shows the ancillary plans
but not the actual main task.
 There is a bit of an
improvement to research
music distribution companies,
he researched in more depth
to which bands are within the
company
 We gave him 12/20 marks.

3. Ancillary Task 1
 The name of the album doesn’t
have any background to it. It
seems random.
 However it’s good to have little
comments that state what he
did so we could tell the
differences from the previous
album prototype
 The image inside the album is an
improvement, however the dark
green background does not
match the image on the
opposite side as it has brighter
colours
 We gave this task 5/10 marks.

4. Ancillary Task 2
 The photo for the poster again
isn’t the best as there are
lighting issues such as the guy
in the middle seems as though
he is more in the shadow of an
object over the other band
members making him seem
darker than the others which
makes him seem like he isn’t as
important to the band as
others are
 The poster has a lot of features
in it, but they don’t go in
depth in why they changed
things.
 We gave this task 7/10

5. Main Task
 We thought the
construction of the
main task was good.
 He posted things in
order of what they did.
 The update feeds are
useful as it tells us the
steps they took to
complete the task and
any issues that arise
during their
production.
 We marked this 30/40

6. Evaluation
 The context within the
evaluation are really good,
they seem to answer the
questions well.
 The “My Contribution” post
seems out of place, we think
he should put more details
and explain more in this
section to expand on it as it is
too simple.
 He is lacking the multimedia of
this section as he only has
normal blog posts, SlideShare
and video streams of him. He
needs to add more in such as
Prezi and PowerPoint
 We awarded him 15/20 marks

7. Amy Crow’s Research and
Planning
 She went in depth into
different horror movie
posters and magazine
covers.
 She made an effective
questionnaire and
produced the results.
 She took a lot of
pictures of locations
she could use for her
own product.
 We gave her 13/20
marks.

8. Ancillary Task 1
 She only analysed 1 magazine
cover in little depth.
 When analysing the production
companies, she only stated what
the companies were and what
films they produced. Nothing about
the actual company itself.
 Her front cover did look good, but
she didn’t explain how she got to
the final product in depth. She
talked about bad photography
that was taken in little depth.
 She didn’t talk about anything that
she didn’t like about the magazine
itself, everything seemed to be right
the first time she did it.
 We marked this 3/10

9. Ancillary Task 2
 All she did for the flat plan
was take 2 pictures of how
she wanted her posters to
look. She didn’t annotate
the images.
 For the fonts she took
screenshots of different
fonts she could use for her
poster. She didn’t go in
depth.
 Her poster itself was very
basic and she didn’t talk to
it in-depth at all.
 We gave this task 2/10

10. Main Task
 She created a time plan which
would have been helpful for her
group.
 She took a screen shot of Google
maps of possible locations, she
didn’t take pictures of the actual
locations.
 She took a screenshot of her ipod
for weather conditions for the day
of filming.
 She contacted paramount studios
to see if she could use the sound
track.
 She analysed the paranormal
activity 3 trailer in small depth.
 The final product itself was alright.
 We gave this task 27/40

11. Evaluation
 The evaluation in a
whole was the best
part of the entire
project.
 She went in depth
and tried to answer
all of the questions in
detail.
 We gave this part of
the task 16/20

12. Natalie Wood’s Research and
Planning
 Her research was quite
minimal for the posters and
magazines
 Few trailers researched
 She annotated a few media
products but not in much
detail
 Questionnaires carried out
where not affective as they
ask the audience what they
feel are the conventions of
horror movie posters instead of
doing more indepth research
herself.
 More evidence of location
research is needed
 We gave it 13/20 marks.

13. Ancillary Task 1
 It seems like a lot of
effort went into 2
designs on the font and
hardly any for the others
 A lot of the fonts don’t
seem very professional
 They also do not look
like they would be
horror titles.
 The magazine does not
look very authentic
 We marked this task
5/10

14. Ancillary Task 2
 The image is pretty
good as it very vague
and makes the
audience wonder who
the black figure is.
 The finished design is
very bare.
 Seems to grab
audience’s attention.
 We awarded her 6/10

15. Main Task
 Shows little of what
they are doing
 Little information about
when and how things
were carried out
 Blog seems to be in no
order
 Hard to identify
between different
tasks
 We gave her 23/40
marks

16. Evaluation
 Questionnaires are
okay
 Different
multimedia used
 She has used a few
methods of
audience research
 We gave it 14/20