A series of shots taken directly from the site could be boring or predictable/doesn’t really tell us anything more than what a nature documentary could. So what do we add into these videos that caters to our skill sets? Projecting on models is definitely a good move. Overlaying/multiplying maps could be interesting in the videos but we would have to make sure that that somehow comes through consistently and clearly.
Some other thoughts…
-Grabbing narrations from just about anything to fill up more sound
-We can use stills in places or as sequences. Sometimes that can be more powerful than a moving image.
-If we find any olde time stories/newspaper articles about Tacoma, those definitely should go in
-Thinking of sediments – it would be cool to start abstracting this a bit. I’ve been just shooting scenes from the site. But what happens when we just take sediments from the site and tell that story (that was confusing- basically super zoomed in footage to overlay on things or somehow get away from just always having big panoramas).
-Text narrations help
-How can editing be really manipulative, erosive, powerful, voluminous, damaging, degrading, depositing, other metaphorical things regarding sediments?
-We should think about sediments and these different waterways more conceptually – what does dredging/fill/repeat/volcanoes/etc look like spatially and theoretically?
-What is the personal connection in our episodes. Paddle to the sea is effective because it has this strangely personified thing the movie follows around. So how can we personify things more? -To make people feel attached we need to offer them a reason to care and “nature” scecnes might not do it – so how do we put the people in these scenes?