Group Project Progress Blog | From Multiple Ideas to One Unified Version:
Naturalisation Protocol
Over the past few weeks, our group project has gradually shifted from “lots of interesting ideas but no clear direction” to a version that is readable, filmable, and realistically achievable. Rather than finding the final answer immediately, we arrived at it through constant discussion, testing, cutting, and merging.
1) Early Stage: Everyone Brought Different Directions
At the beginning, we had several competing versions, each with a different emphasis:
- A more comedic approach set in an “emotion training classroom,” where the alien’s mistakes create humour.
- A more serious sci-fi version set in a controlled future lab, with a colder and more tense atmosphere.
- A more performance-driven idea focusing on exaggerated body language to show how the alien “doesn’t understand humans.”
All of these were interesting, but we quickly realised that if we tried to include everything, the short film would feel like a collection of random moments. The audience might enjoy individual scenes, but the overall story would be harder to follow.
2) How We Made Decisions: Comparing Ideas by Clear Criteria
To avoid choosing based on personal preference, we compared each option using a few clear criteria:
- Cause-and-effect clarity: Can we explain the story in one sentence? Does the conflict lead logically to the outcome?
- Shot and acting readability: Without heavy dialogue, can the audience still understand what the character feels and why?
- Production feasibility: Can we realistically complete it with the time and resources we have?
- Thematic consistency: What is the film actually about? Is it just “the alien is weird,” or something deeper?
This helped us stop “voting for favourites” and start building a version that works as a film.
3) The Unified Version We Merged: Test → Training → Test (A Clear Proof Structure)
In the end, we didn’t select one person’s full proposal. Instead, we merged the strongest elements into a cleaner structure:
- Keeping a realistic test scene (so the audience can quickly judge what looks “human” and what doesn’t).
- Adding a controlled training space (to clearly show correction, feedback, and improvement).
- Returning to a second test to create a strong contrast and closure.
This structure is simple but powerful: first attempt fails → the reason becomes clear → targeted training → second attempt succeeds. It allowed us to focus our screen time on the character’s change, instead of stacking too many plot points.
4) Our Shared Core Idea: The Conflict Is “Mimicry vs. Understanding”
As we merged the story, we reached a shared conclusion: the strongest part of the project isn’t only that the alien looks strange. The real tension comes from the gap between copying and understanding.
The alien can replicate gestures, but may not understand the timing and motivation behind human emotion. That’s why we decided to focus on small, readable performance details:
- A pause that lasts half a beat too long
- Unnatural blinking rhythm
- A delayed smile
- Stiff fingers and awkward grip on a cup
- Emotional reactions that are too strong or too weak, like “performing” instead of feeling
These micro-actions help the audience instantly read: it’s trying to be human, but something is still off.
5) What I Learned from Working Together
The biggest lesson from our teamwork is that collaboration isn’t about keeping every idea. It’s about agreeing on a shared standard: what must be shown clearly on camera.
This final version works because it balances:
- Clear cause-and-effect storytelling
- Strong potential for shot language (contrast, feedback, reversal, closure)
- Acting readability (micro facial/body details)
- A controlled scope we can actually deliver
In short, we didn’t just find a “cooler idea”—we combined many ideas into a version that is clearer, stronger, and more achievable.
