7 thoughts on “Is this our future?

  1. i’d say that the question is fundamentally flawed. how much time and effort? it’s not just a technical exercise (if you get somebody with flash or adobe after effects skills and all the source material – vector and bitmap files – it would only take a few hours at most). the hard part is the creative side … planning, storyboarding, creating/gathering all the artwork, sourcing music, writing the script, etc.

  2. It was intended as a rhetorical question, but thank you for answering 🙂

    Aren’t universities the kinds of places that these skills should be available – the difficult part is coordinating the process. There is certainly a gap between made-for-TV advertising and ultra low cost student-made videos that this kind of video could fill.

  3. I very much hope such things can be produced under the Edge Hill banner. I see a continuum of marketing stuff – high-end, centrally produced official stuff through to roguish, open-source, sexy, throwaway, student produced material. With a middle ground of quick/realtime stuff that is produced by staff but is using the immediacy and vernacular of the new media.
    As for the content of the video itself – it’s the digital equivalent of those 50s projections of the future with people living in domes and flying to work on jet cycles, ie projecting current technology forwards and ignoring newer technologies that will come from different, less predictable angles. I reckon digital will pass the ball up the field to biotechnology and nanotechnology.
    On a different point, I’d say the brand concepts will have a lifespan longer than the media platforms, ie there’ll be some kind of Times and BBC even if they’re floating in our eyeballs. It’s interesting even to day that the newer medium if TV defers to newspapers (ie news shows discuss what’s in the papers).

  4. “…It’s interesting even to day that the newer medium if TV defers to newspapers (ie news shows discuss what’s in the papers).”
    Yet there is far more discussion in newspapers of what was shown, or is being shown, or will be shown, on TV.

    TV news programmes refer, but don’t defer, to newspapers.

  5. I see your point, but why do they even refer to them? It’s like saying ‘we’re a news medium, and now we’re going to look at what a different new medium was saying some hours ago’. They don’t say ‘here’s a round up of what was on the radio news a while ago’. So is it that the TV has to borrow some credibility from the papers, or that there’s news value in what the paper have decided to prioritise (as in ‘today the tabloids think it’s important to talk about Big Brother whilst the broadsheets are sticking it to Tony Blair and the Indie is reminding us all about climate change’?)

Comments are closed.