Q: The filming was kind of a long process, but maybe it didn't need to be? Or maybe it did? The first night of filming at the Thornbury Bowls Club was for a test shoot with mine and Rosie's camera, to work out which one we wanted to use for her film. The second night of filming involved us getting establishing shots of the location. The third night of filming involved us mainly shooting Rosie's script. And the fourth night of shooting involved us mainly shooting Bell's script and getting any other shots we needed to get. Perhaps we didn't need an entire night of filming just to get establishing shots and filler shots, but it certainly made it a lot easier having multiple shots to choose from. For the two nights of shooting we certainly didn't get that much coverage, which meant in the edit we were somewhat stuck using certain shots because we didn't have other options. This was mainly because of time limitations with actors and batteries on cameras dying and such. I'm so neurotic I would have happily spent two nights shooting establishing shots and filler shots and two nights on each shoot, but not everyone wants to rearrange the rest of their life to fit around such projects. I get a tad obsessive if I'm allowed, which can often benefit me, although I do become a giant pain in everyone else's ass. The main thing I learnt from the filming process was that you can plan out exactly what you want to do, and how your going to do it, but once you get into the location with the actors this plan often changes however, you are still much better of having the plan than none at all! As the neurotic freak I am, I had all the shots I wanted to use storyboarded. I had originally planned to shoot all the establishing shots, stick them in a timeline and then also shoot the other shots (with fill in actors) and add them to the timeline to see how it looked. Of course no one else was interested in spending an entire night shooting the film but with them as stands in just so I could complete my psychotic endeavour of... The faux film was made: - after the real film - just for fun - not enough information - before the real film
A: before the real film

Q: The southern state of Alabama is the center of the U.S. political universe this week as voters on Tuesday choose a senator to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become attorney general. The race pits controversial Republican Roy Moore, who is battling sexual harassment allegations, against Democrat Doug Jones, a former prosecutor. The outcome of the race could have national implications for both political parties and for President Donald Trump. Moore has denied several allegations of sexual misconduct when he was in his 30s involving women who were teenagers at the time, including one who was 14. "I do not know them. I had no encounter with them. I never molested anyone," Moore said in a televised interview Sunday with the Voice of Alabama Politics. Jones says the accusations make Moore unfit to serve in the Senate. "It is crystal clear that these women are telling the truth and Roy Moore is not!" Jones said. Trump recorded a get-out-the-vote phone message for Moore and spoke on his behalf at a rally in neighboring Florida on Friday. "And we want jobs, jobs, jobs. So get out and vote for Roy Moore. Do it. Do it," he said. Trump held off on endorsing Moore for several weeks in the wake of the sexual misconduct allegations, but now says electing Moore is a priority for him. "We certainly don't want to have a liberal Democrat who is controlled by Nancy Pelosi and controlled by Chuck Schumer. We don't want to have that for Alabama," Trump said. In the final days of the campaign, Moore is highlighting his support for the president's agenda. "We are going to see if the people of Alabama will support the president and support his agenda in Washington by electing somebody that is not part of the establishment there," Moore said. Democrat Jones told supporters that Moore's character is the issue. "We know who we are, Alabama, we know who we are. This is an election to tell the world who we are and what we stand for." What state is the story focusing on in terms of a senate election? - Florida - Washington. - not enough information - Alabama.
A: Alabama.

Q: Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the 'worried well' is certainly alive and kicking. Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices. Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don't take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables. While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn't been well studied in large population groups. Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn't take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men. The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium. Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium. For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement 'just in case' offers little to no benefit. What is probably true about patients from the trial with higher nutrient levels? - they don't eat healthy foods - not enough information - they dislike healthy foods - they like healthy foods
A: they like healthy foods

Q: David Gauntlett makes a good point in his newest book (Making Media Studies: The Creativity Turn in Media and Communications Studies) and that is that traditional forms of media studies are no longer applicable. Gone are the days of massive institutions and production companies, gone are the traditional audiences and simplistic texts. In, is the new age media companies, the everyday media makers, the consistent consumers and the fantastical mess of The WWW. While universities are pumping out the same content areas since the 1980's (e.g. institutions, production, audiences and texts) that are only relevant to a handful of media forms (cinema, television, online broadcasting and publications), the rest of the world is moving on. David Gauntlett so rightly says that creativity in media, should also refer to thinking creatively about the subject. What are the new ways of running media and communication studies? How has the subject itself changed? What approaches and methods can help media and communications studies to become innovative and useful in spheres beyond itself? David Gauntlett encourages a kind of call to arms, an acquiescence of the incapacities of the old system and a redirected gaze to the future needs of media students and media studies programs. Inspired by Tim Ingold's book Making, David believes media studies should have making at it's front and centre. He also believes the ability to do things with media should be embraced over and above the ability to talk about what others do with media, or what media does to us. The notion is that media studies should be hands on, that it should be all about ideas and critical engagement and this should be expressed through actual making. To borrow three key distinctions from the anthropologist Tim Ingold: 1. It's about learning WITH media rather than ABOUT media. 2. There is an intent to move FORWARD rather than looking BACKWARDS at how things are. 3. It's aims are TRANSFORMATIONAL rather than DOCUMENTARY. Why was David making a good point? - Because he saw the days of massive institutions were gone - Because he is stupid - Because he is smart - not enough information
A: Because he saw the days of massive institutions were gone