The Future of Underground Cities from 1942 (Tucker Emery)
4 Replies to “The Future of Underground Cities from 1942 (Tucker Emery)”
I liked this, your edits were subtle, but added a lot to the presentation, it was not stagnant. I liked that you brought in many different past predictions and images to aid your presentation, it kept the project engaging and interesting from start to end. I also enjoyed how you included the past reference of caves, the then present reference of World War II, and the now present reference of the Syria bombings.
I feel like the narration was very rushed. You packed a lot of words into twenty second slides, which is good, but its hard to hear every word and also look at the images when so much effort is put into following along what you are saying. I believe that the presentation could benefit from a smaller word count and taking your time through the narration.
My last point I’m not that confident in, we may have just taken the assignment in different directions, but your original image was only referenced once, you kept with the theme of what was displayed, but after the first slide there was no more investigation on your main image.
The concept of building underground is very interesting and still applicable today. I liked your range of discussion from ancient caves to MOAB, and how it was a logical progression. The idea that warfare and improved military technology provided an impetus to construct underground bunkers to preserve society somewhat reminded me of how cannons changed fort construction. It was a rational cause and effect relationship. I thought that in cramming in these good concepts, your talking was a little fast-paced. Also, it would be helpful to explicitly state when each image was produced next time. It was clear that they weren’t chronological, and I found myself trying to guess the time period on some of them (like the diagram of an underground sustainable building), which was a bit distracting from the main points of your slidecast. Although I am a fan of Arundhati Roy, I also wasn’t sure how her quote fit in with the rest of the presentation. Maybe it was the fact that you jumped from 1942 to 2017 in the first two slides. The quote may have been better placed elsewhere, like when you were talking about current military technology. I think that if you pay specific attention to chronology next time, it will go a long way towards improving organization.
I actually really liked this slidecast, I thought it had pretty strong temporal continuity and a well organized overall theme. However, there were a couple of major issues I had with it. Firstly, you speak very quickly and very quietly in somewhat of a monotone, and at times, that makes it rather difficult to understand what you are saying. If you enunciated more and didn’t drone quite as much, the narration would be even more engaging than it already is. In addition, perhaps we had different interpretations of the assignment but I wish you had returned to speak more on your opening image. On the whole, though, I feel like this was a very well organized and interesting presentation.
I wish you elaborated more at the beginning of the slide cast, jumping right in caused me to go back and re watch the beginning of the presentation. This was not helped by how quickly you talked throughout the presentation. Although I applaud you choosing a more specific topic than most, it made the video immediately more entertaining. The presentation was very well thought out in how you choose to maintain chronological order, only going back to further emphasize your point. I also liked how you talked about the technological feasibility of underground buildings and the different groups of people that would be needed to create it. While this video was meant to showcase the past the use of current topics like sustainability and how we are still creating and testing underground buildings did a nice job of bringing the topic back to us, it felt personable.
I liked this, your edits were subtle, but added a lot to the presentation, it was not stagnant. I liked that you brought in many different past predictions and images to aid your presentation, it kept the project engaging and interesting from start to end. I also enjoyed how you included the past reference of caves, the then present reference of World War II, and the now present reference of the Syria bombings.
I feel like the narration was very rushed. You packed a lot of words into twenty second slides, which is good, but its hard to hear every word and also look at the images when so much effort is put into following along what you are saying. I believe that the presentation could benefit from a smaller word count and taking your time through the narration.
My last point I’m not that confident in, we may have just taken the assignment in different directions, but your original image was only referenced once, you kept with the theme of what was displayed, but after the first slide there was no more investigation on your main image.
Tucker,
The concept of building underground is very interesting and still applicable today. I liked your range of discussion from ancient caves to MOAB, and how it was a logical progression. The idea that warfare and improved military technology provided an impetus to construct underground bunkers to preserve society somewhat reminded me of how cannons changed fort construction. It was a rational cause and effect relationship. I thought that in cramming in these good concepts, your talking was a little fast-paced. Also, it would be helpful to explicitly state when each image was produced next time. It was clear that they weren’t chronological, and I found myself trying to guess the time period on some of them (like the diagram of an underground sustainable building), which was a bit distracting from the main points of your slidecast. Although I am a fan of Arundhati Roy, I also wasn’t sure how her quote fit in with the rest of the presentation. Maybe it was the fact that you jumped from 1942 to 2017 in the first two slides. The quote may have been better placed elsewhere, like when you were talking about current military technology. I think that if you pay specific attention to chronology next time, it will go a long way towards improving organization.
I actually really liked this slidecast, I thought it had pretty strong temporal continuity and a well organized overall theme. However, there were a couple of major issues I had with it. Firstly, you speak very quickly and very quietly in somewhat of a monotone, and at times, that makes it rather difficult to understand what you are saying. If you enunciated more and didn’t drone quite as much, the narration would be even more engaging than it already is. In addition, perhaps we had different interpretations of the assignment but I wish you had returned to speak more on your opening image. On the whole, though, I feel like this was a very well organized and interesting presentation.
I wish you elaborated more at the beginning of the slide cast, jumping right in caused me to go back and re watch the beginning of the presentation. This was not helped by how quickly you talked throughout the presentation. Although I applaud you choosing a more specific topic than most, it made the video immediately more entertaining. The presentation was very well thought out in how you choose to maintain chronological order, only going back to further emphasize your point. I also liked how you talked about the technological feasibility of underground buildings and the different groups of people that would be needed to create it. While this video was meant to showcase the past the use of current topics like sustainability and how we are still creating and testing underground buildings did a nice job of bringing the topic back to us, it felt personable.