Teamwork suggestion: The definite introduction to psychopathy (video)

[Renaissance]

Really well done, IMO. Maybe this Lobaczewski quote can be put in, if there's room: "Natural human reactions strike them as strange, interesting, and even comical." It would be illustrated well with a picture of perhaps a Palestinian holding his/her dead child. To think that someone would find this "comical" is horrific. A good shock, I think.

The audio during this picture could be Bush's 'joke' he gave at an event about 'those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere', with the crowd laughing. Perhaps better fit if this audio is used is a picture or clip of an Iraqi holding his/her dead child - or perhaps those horrific pictures of that screaming little girl covered in her parents blood after their car got shot up.

I also agree that the new edited script is very well done.

 

[Darren]

The AL quote is added to the script - it fits in nicely.

I suppose, once a draft script is decided on, we can get the audio together, begin collecting video clips, and go from there?

nf3's suggestion of Lux Aeterna for the music would be a great choice; it has some good highs and lows.

 

[sHiZo963]

Wow, Darren - great work! I love the modifications to the script that you made.
It shall serve as the template for the work that I do from now on.

In light of the above, I made a few changes and additions to the video. Check it out: here.

The next step is collecting video clips and/or images of all that is mentioned in the updated script, i.e. "clip of couples/groups," "clip of people crying, someone placing comforting arm around a child," "clip of someone apologizing," etc.
If you guys could find them, I will be able to incorporate them into the flash presentation quite easily. The trouble is finding this stuff on the 'net.


I found that by publishing a Flash file inside an HTML, for some reason it slows it down by a number of frame rates. This is why I manually adjust the frame rates of the original .swf file UP so that it plays as it should when embedded and viewed in HTML.

This is has a weird effect on sound, however. I've been trying to embed the flash presentation with sound effects, but when published, it plays differently from how it should. So, I've been thinking that the best way to deal with this would be to add sound AFTER the flash itself is done and converted to a .mov or .avi (I found programs online that do the conversion but haven't tested yet), and then using editing software to add the sound and music, as needed. I don't have any experience doing the actual video editing, however, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

I also found great sound effects of a beating heart and EKG machine at theFreeSoundProject, which I then edited using free sound editing software (Audacity). All of these along with the music (Lux Aeterna sounds amazing) can be then compiled into a grand master mix (.wav or .mp3) of a definite length using the same software and embedded in the finalized .avi and/or .mov video file.

Thanks all for the help!! :)

 

[Cyre2067]

Just wanted to say that the script looks awesome. I'll try to find some of those picture's Shizo mentioned.

The preliminary animation linked above really imprints the information.

Incredible Job Guys!

Edit: Found some pic's of happy couples:

- Just needs the for sale sign cut out.

-Gotta have the gheys! Or not, just a suggestion.

- I love the retro feel that comes with the sepia

And i'll stop takin up room now... all i did was google - image search - "happy couple" plenty to choose from there if the above doesn't fit.

edit again: this one's cute, youtube involving a little role reversal and lip sync'ing _http://youtube.com/watch?v=bwiVQrsSs5M

here's a couples first dance @ their wedding, _http://youtube.com/watch?v=9tlyFnSB-go

and another one of the same here: _http://youtube.com/watch?v=3nie9lKPifg

Erm, im posting these I kinda assumed someone has video gankin abilities, my technical expertise is lacking and if i assumed incorrectly apologies.

 

[anart]

Not to be a wet blanket, but just a reminder that it would be best to use 'public use' photos - maybe that is what these are, Cyre, and if so, apologies and disregard this post. I was just thinking that if someone in one of these wedding photos sees their picture in this video that they might be quite upset about it. I realize that the chances of such a thing happening are low, but people consider wedding photos to be quite personal, so if these are real wedding photos of real people who are still alive, it might be wise to exercise some caution.

 

[Cyre2067]

Anart brings up a good point, so i started scouring to see how one could determine whether or not legality is an issue. I found this website: _http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.law.html which seems to have general guidelines for photographers, but also some mention of fair use and copyright that may be applicable. In my ignorance I assumed since i found it on the internet it's "public domain" and therefore usable, but it seems from the website that if your in the picture you have a say on how it may or may not be used. Perhaps pictures we take ourselves from people we know might be the safest option.

Does anyone have the legal understanding/background to give us some clarification on what should be avoided?

Edit: Found this bit on fair use.

Fair Use

Fair Use (or Fair Dealing in some countries) permits copying for some purposes, but is a complex issue. Generally, copying is permitted for personal use, research, teaching, criticism, parody, news reporting and editorial use.

Beyond that, the law is deliberately vague and is decided on a case-by-case basis. A lawyer can render an opinion, but there's no accurate answer until a case is adjudicated by a court. Questions include: how commercial was the use, has the market of the original work been affected, how different is the derivative work, has a significant amount of work been copied. Note that "fair use" is an "affirmative defense", where the infringer has the burden of proof to show that the use was indeed fair.

So if you advertise a book or website it would render your ability to call it "Fair" nill, osit. Unless, of course, we use our own pic's. Then again, personal use, research, teaching, criticism, parody and editorial use seem to cover the project... hmph. I'll be quiet now until some more feedback is given.

 

[nf3]

Does anyone have the legal understanding/background to give us some clarification on what should be avoided?

Well, for this project it is probably safest to assume that if there is any doubt then there is no doubt. SOTT being sued for using somebody's wedding photos sounds like a painful and easily avoidable experience.

commons.wikimedia.org has lots of photos with detailed copyright info, mostly public.

 

[herondancer]

Hi Darren,

Including quotes from researchers really adds heft to the script. The re-write also gives more scope for images. Here's one possible change

(clips of wall street and people in power)
gaining power without conscience

Maybe: (without a conscience, it's easy to gain power)

Still not sure how to handle the "you are human" part. It is awkward.

Here's a longer (6 min) version of Lux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLpJtvzlEI&mode=related&search=

The dynamics get very big in the last two mins.

Herondancer

 

[anart]

Still not sure how to handle the "you are human" part. It is awkward.

How about -

'Good.

That indicates that you are not without a conscience.'

or

'Good.

That indicates that you are not part of the pathological minority'

or

'That indicates that you are not yet ponerized.'

Something along those lines?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Still not sure how to handle the "you are human" part. It is awkward.

How about -

'Good.

That indicates that you are not without a conscience.'

or

'Good.

That indicates that you are not part of the pathological minority'

or

'That indicates that you are not yet ponerized.'

Something along those lines?

How about just:

Good. That means you're human.

 

[anart]

How about just:

Good. That means you're human.

heheh - uhm, that's what we started with. Darren was thinking it was a little awkward, so was asking for alternatives. It does speak to the fact that is a concise way to state it, I just worry that it is concise to us because we know so much about the topic - to the average viewer, wouldn't the psychopaths be 'human' too - just different humans? Just a thought.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

How about just:

Good. That means you're human.

heheh - uhm, that's what we started with. Darren was thinking it was a little awkward, so was asking for alternatives. It does speak to the fact that is a concise way to state it, I just worry that it is concise to us because we know so much about the topic - to the average viewer, wouldn't the psychopaths be 'human' too - just different humans? Just a thought.

Haha. Oops. I'll fall back on the "it's not EXACTLY what Darren originally had" excuse... Maybe "Good. It means you're not a psychopath."

 

[domi]

How about just:

Good. That means you're human.

What about:

Good. That means you're more than just humanoid.

 

[Zadius Sky]

How about we all write them down on a separate piece of paper, and put them in a lizzie's hat. Shake it up, and take one. Then, you have a choice.

I wrote down: "Good, that means you're an adamic." (just in case if anyone pick that one up and wondering whose was it from).

:)

 

[Beau]

Good: you have a conscience