This week focused on developing a viable research topic for the thesis. We discussed what makes a strong research question and looked at examples of topics that were either too broad or too narrow. The session highlighted the importance of choosing a topic that is both interesting and realistic to research.
One thing I found useful was the emphasis on testing whether a topic can actually be supported by enough research and evidence. It made me realise that having an interesting idea is only part of the process; it also needs to be manageable and backed by reliable sources.
At this stage I was still exploring possible directions for my thesis, but the lecture gave me a better understanding of how to refine ideas into a focused research question. It also encouraged me to start thinking more critically about the relationship between my interests and what can realistically be developed into a full research project.
Thursday’s lecture shifted the focus from cinematography to story structure. Ting spent a lot of time introducing the SWBST framework (Somebody, Wanted, But, So, Then) and explaining how it can be used to build stories around conflict and consequence rather than simply listing events. One idea she repeatedly emphasized was that stories should be connected by “therefore” and “but” rather than “and then”, allowing character choices and obstacles to naturally drive the narrative. Throughout the class we practiced this by taking simple scenarios and building them into short stories using the SWBST structure. I found this approach useful because it reduced storytelling to a clear framework and made me think more critically about motivation and cause-and-effect rather than isolated scenes.
Towards the end of the session, Ting assigned us a cinematic analysis exercise where we had to choose a scene from a film we liked and explain why its shots and camera angles worked. I chose the Peter Parker versus Flash Thompson scene from Spider-Man because I thought it was a good example of how cinematography can establish power dynamics between characters. Looking at the scene frame by frame made me appreciate how subtle camera choices influence the audience’s perception. Low angles, framing, and shot size all contributed to establishing Flash as the dominant character initially before gradually shifting the balance of power. This exercise also reinforced the connection between the previous week’s focus on camera language and this week’s emphasis on storytelling.
CInematography Analysis
On Friday, we were introduced to a new previs exercise called “Hunter to Prey”. Working in pairs, we had to create a short story that established one character as the hunter and another as the prey before reversing their roles. My partner and I came up with the story of a young man disturbing his elderly neighbour by playing loud music, only for the tables to turn when a stray ball unexpectedly knocks him down. Rather than jumping straight into animation, we spent the session focusing on the narrative and visual beats. Over the weekend, we developed the idea further, creating rough visualisations before constructing a shot list and dividing the work between us.
Since our story involved dancing and exaggerated movement, I also spent some time watching YouTube videos of simple dance routines and using them as reference. This helped me think about posing and timing, and gave us a clearer idea of how the character’s movements could communicate his carefree and somewhat obnoxious personality before the reversal.
What I found interesting about this assignment was how naturally the SWBST structure fit into our story. Somebody: an inconsiderate young man. Wanted: to enjoy himself and annoy his neighbour. But: his actions eventually lead to consequences. So: the situation reverses. Then: the power dynamic shifts and he becomes the victim. Although simple, this exercise helped me understand that story structure and cinematography are closely linked. Camera angles and shot choices become much more meaningful when they are supporting changes in character relationships and dramatic tension rather than existing purely for style. This made me realize that effective visual storytelling starts long before animation it begins with understanding the story’s underlying structure.
This week’s session focused on short narratives and visual storytelling, particularly non-dialogue animated films. As we will eventually be producing our own short film for the final project, the topic felt especially relevant. One activity I remember was contributing to a Padlet where everyone shared some of their favourite short films and animations. It was interesting to see the range of references people brought in, from well-known animated shorts to more experimental pieces.
A large part of the lecture explored how stories can be communicated without dialogue. We looked at examples such as Shaun the Sheep, Flow and Animanimals, which rely on character performance, body language and visual storytelling rather than spoken words. One point that stood out to me was how common non-dialogue films are in student animation projects. Lip-sync animation can be extremely time-consuming, so many filmmakers choose to focus on visual storytelling instead. Seeing successful examples of this approach made it clear that dialogue is not always necessary to create an engaging narrative.
Reflecting on the session, I began paying more attention to how information is communicated visually. Looking at these films made me realise how much can be conveyed through staging, movement and character acting alone. As someone who will eventually need to create a short film for this course, the lecture gave me a better understanding of how non-dialogue storytelling can be both a creative choice and a practical production decision.
This week was our first lecture of the year, although it felt a bit strange because it took place the day before the deadline for last term’s submission. The session introduced the thesis proposal brief and covered potential research topics, motivations, applications and ethical considerations. We also looked at the overall structure of the thesis and what will be expected from us over the coming months.
As my main focus at the time was finishing my previous submission, the most useful part of the lecture was Nigel’s advice on formatting. He went through details such as page numbering, chapter numbering and document structure. Although these seem like small details, it reminded me how important presentation is in academic work. After the lecture, I went back to my submission and made a few final changes before handing it in.
Looking back, I did not spend much time thinking about my thesis topic yet because my attention was on the deadline. However, the lecture gave me a better understanding of the scale of the project and what will be required. It also made me start thinking about possible areas of research that connect to my interests in animation, technology and audience interaction.
Thursday’s session focused on cinematography and camera language. We discussed how composition, focus, focal length, geometry and movement can all be used to communicate meaning and guide the audience’s attention. Ting emphasized that the placement of the camera should always be motivated by what the scene is about and what the filmmaker wants to say, rather than simply choosing visually interesting angles. We reviewed an assignment she had given us over the break, which involved storyboarding scenes from The Incredibles. After analyzing the original sequences, we were asked to create new storyboards using different camera angles and shot choices based on the cinematography principles covered in class.
Towards the end of the session, Ting introduced the “5 × 5” challenge. We had to create a storyboard consisting of exactly five shots, each lasting five seconds, using only camera language to tell a story about a person in a bar. There was to be no dialogue and no facial acting, meaning that framing, composition and camera movement had to carry the narrative. The assignment was due the following day, so it required quick decision making and forced me to think more economically about storytelling. I found it surprisingly difficult to communicate emotion and progression with such limited tools, but the exercise made me appreciate how much information can be conveyed through cinematography alone.
My storyboard
On Friday, the exercise took an unexpected turn when Ting paired everyone up and asked us to exchange storyboards. Rather than animating our own ideas, we became directors of our own sequences and had to explain them clearly to our partners while animating somebody else’s work ourselves. After a short demonstration on camera rig animation in Maya, we spent the remainder of the session working on the shots. I found this process particularly interesting because it pushed collaboration to another level. Animating a sequence that was not originally my idea forced me to pay close attention to communication and interpretation. At the same time, directing someone else through my storyboard made me realise how important clarity is in visual storytelling. The exercise also gave me the opportunity to work with classmates I had not spoken to much before, making the studio feel much more collaborative and connected.
This week I focused on writing my introduction as well as starting my literature. I did some research to get an understanding of the uncanny valley, both in the context of robotics and animation
This short videos gave me pointers to where I could look to, to carry out my research. It mentioned relevant names and film, which ended up being instrumental in my research
This week was a brief session, where we focused on citation and referencing. We looked into why it is important to reference properly as well the referencing style the university adopts. We were also introduced to different tools that make referencing, and keeping track of those referencing easier for a more streamlined workflow.
We were also briefed on the audio-visual presentation that we would have to submit with our critical report
This week we discussed what goes into writing a literature review. We looked into how to use existing works to establish a background and strengthen our arguments, while identifying gaps in current research. We also discussed the difference between synthesizing, summarizing, paraphrasing and quoting. We looked into when each approach is appropriate as well as how often each approach should be used.
After last week’s one on one with Nigel, I decided to focus my research on possible advantages of the uncanny valley and how it can be used in storytelling
This week we had one on one tutorial with Nigel, and we were given the opportunity to present our ideas for a research topic for our critical report. I decided to write on the uncanny valley and why it is the reason hyper realistic style animations are usually avoided. I picked this because I’ve always preferred a near photorealist style in animation but I almost never see any, so I picked this topic to find out why.
Nigel told me that it is a good topic as it is properly researched, and a very common conversation in the animation academic world. He did tell me to try and find something that would make my research stand out from the many others that have been done, which is something for me to think about
