There is an obvious structure to the case study, where first the phone is introduced, and then its features are tested. We wanted to replicate this, only we wanted to use this format to create an anti-climax, such as not being able to test the device.
In the case study, the video is structured so that first the reviewer gives some context to the phone. He then talks about his first impressions, what he likes, gives some statistics about the measurements of the phone and what this means for someone looking to get it. For the rest of the video, he moves on to explaining the features of the phone and what he finds important in this respect, with a focus on the camera. He then shows some photos he’s taken to back up the points he’s making, and from this my group decided that on a very basic level, an online video review roughly follows this structure: introduction, first impressions, testing features, wrap up.
Using this, we decided to explore what it would be like if this structure was not met, or was only followed up to a certain point. We pushed this idea to come up with the concept of having an anti-climax, where the review might build up as per this expected structure, only to have the reviewer turn around when it came to testing the device to say they couldn’t do it. This is what we’ve touched on in our sketch, where we looked at what the dialogue for this particular anti-climax might look like.
By subverting the expectations of the viewer like this, not only are we making a point of how certain conventions exist when regarding genre online – in this case the expected structure of a video review – but we are drawing from parody as such an abrupt end to the segment is unexpected and almost defeats the purpose of the review itself, as this is what the review has been leading up to all along.