Antarctica Explainer Video Project
Overview
Working in production teams, you will research and produce a documentary-style explainer video for the UTA Special Collections. Your goal is to bring a static archival map to life by telling the story of an expedition, scientific discovery, or mythology connected to Antarctica.
Important Dates
Rough Cut Due: Tuesday, April 28
Final Video Due: Thursday, May 7.
Key Requirement: Person + Place + Thing
Your video must clearly integrate:
Person → Explorer, scientist, or historical figure
Place → Specific Antarctic location
Thing → Object, concept, or discovery
⚠️ These must be woven into one cohesive narrative, not three separate sections.
Project Specifications
Length: 3–5 minutes
Style: Documentary / explainer video
Must include:
Animated maps
Voiceover narration
Kinetic typography
Required Skills & Techniques
Editing Techniques (Use at least 3)
Jump cuts
Match cuts
Cut on action
Speed changes (slow motion / time-lapse)
Sound design (audio layering, effects, ambience)
Visual Storytelling
Camera framing
Camera angles
Simulated camera movement
Preproduction
Script writing
Storyboard OR planning document
Team Roles
Teams will divide responsibilities across:
Research & Scriptwriting
Asset Design (maps, graphics, typography)
Animation
Editing & Post-Production
Deliverables
Final video (3–5 minutes)
Script (voiceover text)
Preproduction materials (storyboard, shot list, or planning doc)
Team contribution documentation
Grading Criteria
Category | Excellent (A) | Proficient (B–C) | Needs Improvement (D–F) | Points |
Content & Research | Information is accurate and clearly explained. Uses multiple credible sources. The person, place, and thing are explicitly connected and explained as part of one cohesive story. | Information is mostly accurate but may be surface-level or uneven. Person/place/thing are present but connections are not fully explained. | Information is limited, unclear, or inaccurate. Person/place/thing are missing, unclear, or treated as separate ideas. | 40 |
Storytelling & Script | Script has a clear beginning, middle, and end. Voiceover is easy to follow, well-paced, and directly supports visuals. The main idea is clear throughout. | Script structure is present but may feel uneven or unclear in parts. Voiceover may be too fast/slow or loosely connected to visuals. | Script is disorganized or difficult to follow. Voiceover is unclear, missing, or does not support the visuals. | 40 |
Visual Design & Animation | Visuals (maps, graphics, typography) are clear, readable, and consistently styled. Animation helps explain ideas (e.g., movement, zoom, emphasis). Visuals directly support the content. | Visuals are present but may be inconsistent, cluttered, or occasionally unclear. Animation is basic or not always meaningful. | Visuals are unclear, missing, or distracting. Little to no effective use of maps, typography, or animation. | 40 |
Editing & Technical Execution | Includes at least 3 required editing techniques, used to improve clarity, pacing, or emphasis. Transitions are smooth. Audio is clear and balanced. Sound design adds meaning or atmosphere. | Includes required techniques but they may feel forced, inconsistent, or not clearly connected to the story. Some pacing or audio issues. | Missing required techniques or techniques are ineffective. Poor pacing, abrupt transitions, or distracting audio issues. | 50 |
Preproduction Planning | Complete script AND clear planning document (storyboard, shot list, or outline). Plan shows how visuals, narration, and structure fit together. Final video follows the plan. | Script and planning materials are present but lack detail or do not fully match the final video. | Little or no planning materials submitted. Script or plan is incomplete or unclear. | 30 |
Team Contributions
Category | Excellent (A) | Proficient (B–C) | Needs Improvement (D–F) | Points |
Contribution & Collaboration | Clear documentation of roles and completed work. Peer evaluations indicate consistent effort and collaboration. All members contribute meaningfully. | Some uneven contribution or limited documentation. Peer feedback indicates moderate participation. | Minimal contribution, missing documentation, or negative peer evaluations. Lack of collaboration. | 50 |
Locked Message
