Question 2

How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary texts?

In terms of overall coherence I don't think that I managed to stick to a consistent house style. As with most people I think the prospect of creating a music video is a task so big that ideas begin to form straight away in many possible directions before they are refined through planning and research. As a result, creating the advert and digipack print productions can seem to take a clear backseat.

This is most likely why the overall appearance of my digipack and magazine advert fit and work well as a package but seem disjointed when compared to the video itself.

Production of the music video came at a significantly later date than the print productions, both of which were produced at the same time. I made the decision to use the same images for both my advert and my digipack and when immediately asked with both, I had a very clear objective of making sure that they looked like they worked together and could easily be linked if seen separately, which they most likely would be.
The colour scheme is also unified to the point of using the same CMYK codes for both productions.

Of course however the presentation of these colours and images varies between the two productions. The advert of course contains both a picture of a tree with an x and a picture of Lucy, brushed with the eraser tool on low opacity in order to create an overlapping fade. This is not featured in the digipack. However, the digipack does embody some of these qualities as to maintain the house style by having a dark almost black fade border around some of the images.

If the music video were to then coincide with the house style I would say that the  moment before Lucy falls backwards would link due to how that particular lighting creates heavy shade which almost borders her face. In contrast however the majority of the video is very brightly lit  in order maintain the overly garish attitude of the song.

However, I do feel that there is nice little hommage to the images on my digipack in terms of the last shot where Lucy can only be seen from the nose down, just as when she is holding the tape on the digipack. Both give an air of dominance and a little omnipresence but don't really shock too much HOWEVER, both are soon followed with imagery that changes your perception. In the video it's the moment puts the piece of pineapple into her mouth and you come to suddenly realise whatever crazy interpretation you please. In terms on the digipack, the layout means that unfolding the cover flap reveals the picture of Lucy, and the second flap then reveals the picture of oli and peter taped to a tree and gagged and looking startled. This could however have been tied in better if the angle had been the same, preferably if Lucy had been face on in the print productions rather than at that slight angle.

I think it would be fair to say that in majority, the immediate aesthetic of the video is not easily linked, if much at all, to the print productions, but I still maintained a similar emotional response within certain mis-en-scene. This may not have been a particularly conscious decision but at least it shows that I wasn't just thinking from a completely fresh design point of view or attitude.

To achieve a better tie in one of two things probably could have been done:
Either A: I could have tried to emulate more of the colour schemes of the print productions within the video, either with filters on the footage (following the same CMYK code) or with closely coloured mis-en-scene, props, costumes...
OR
B: taking the photos for the print production in the daytime (however at the time, none of the 3 were available during daylight hours at the same time).