I got so triggered by this that I had to create an account here to vent my frustration with the show/documentary.
First gripe out of the way: introducing characters by name on the screen but refuses to elaborate further. Wouldn't hurt to put a subtitle underneath showing what job the character was doing and thus how they became involved with the incidents. Although the production tries to explain that through subsequent interview questions and materials, such element does not give succinct and concise information for the audience.
Secondly, with all the readily available materials, resources, and production values that go into the documentary combined with an interesting topic in and off itself, the execution is comparable to a high school project. They, whoever produced and/or directed this, tried too hard to make it feel interesting and that definitely comes back to bite their a**es. Why the reenactment? That seems like total b.s. That serves to mask the apparent lack of thoughts that go into storyboarding and presentation of factual content.
Overall, the shock factor that the producer tries to chase after is nothing more than a pipe dream constructed from eating too much pot brownies. The subject itself, the never-before-seen interviews, the evidence, the reports, etc. Collected from the field already serve their purposes of hooking the audience into the documentary film. They have to some day come into term with "less is more".
First gripe out of the way: introducing characters by name on the screen but refuses to elaborate further. Wouldn't hurt to put a subtitle underneath showing what job the character was doing and thus how they became involved with the incidents. Although the production tries to explain that through subsequent interview questions and materials, such element does not give succinct and concise information for the audience.
Secondly, with all the readily available materials, resources, and production values that go into the documentary combined with an interesting topic in and off itself, the execution is comparable to a high school project. They, whoever produced and/or directed this, tried too hard to make it feel interesting and that definitely comes back to bite their a**es. Why the reenactment? That seems like total b.s. That serves to mask the apparent lack of thoughts that go into storyboarding and presentation of factual content.
Overall, the shock factor that the producer tries to chase after is nothing more than a pipe dream constructed from eating too much pot brownies. The subject itself, the never-before-seen interviews, the evidence, the reports, etc. Collected from the field already serve their purposes of hooking the audience into the documentary film. They have to some day come into term with "less is more".