Green Shooting: Media Sustainability, A New Trend
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
For authors.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I think as a 'concept paper' this overview of Green Shooting makes a clear contribution our understanding of sustainability in political, ethical and environmental terms. It synthesises a range of policy approaches and explores a wide range of approaches to media production and how producers can place sustainability at the forefront of their thinking.
There were a few areas that I thought could be developed:
Perhaps a more detailed review of academic literature in the area, such as Sustainable Media: Critical Approaches to Media and Environment, edited by Nicole Starosielski & Janet Walker (Routledge, 2016).
Is there a more recent example of aligning characters with environmental or social justice? The Amazing Spiderman 2 is nearly seven years old, so more recent examples would be useful.
I had questions about the breakdown of the production process into just pre-, post- and production. Normally exhibition and distribution are not considered to be part of post-production. They are generally separate sectors, especially in the case of exhibition. The shift back toward vertical integration in the case of streaming companies does problematise this, but it seems more an issue of industrial organisation (for film, since OTT services more closely resemble TV broadcast services) than for the post-production sector.
In terms of much of the ethical decision-making in production, these generally come at the stage of development, prior to pre-production. In terms of inclusion and content, many core decisions are made in this stage, prior to the logistics of pre-production. This is where scripting, casting, selection of above-the-line workers, and funding (this isn't an area that's significantly covered for its sustainability or relationship with social justice) takes place. I thought by narrowing to just three phases compresses production to a more limited field - while much of the focus on environmental sustainability is focussed on production, there are questions for development, on the level of individual productions and in structural terms for studios and production companies (relationships with China, for instance?).
Some typographical issues need amending - should it be Green Shooting or green shooting? Both are used.
Also, both BAFTA and Bafta are used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
this is a valuable contribution that, as the authors convincingly argue, focuses on an area that is deserving of more attention in academe as well as in film production circles. It provides a conceptual framework for how the task of implementing "Green Shooting" should be approached at different stages in audiovisual production and circulation, and demonstrates ample familiarity with measures already adopted by European and UK film institutions to move production closer to green goals. In addition to suggestions for minor revision (below), I have three suggestions for improving this article. First, the authors should point out briefly, early in the essay, that they are defining sustainability as more than environmental in dimension, that it includes specific social and cultural dimensions as well, and what those dimensions are (e.g. gender equity, accessibility for disabled crew and cast members, humane treatment of animals, and so forth). Second, it is not entirely clear in the main section of the article detailing steps to be taken in pre-production, production and post-production, who bears the primary responsibility within a film or television organization to see that these steps are carried out, even if an eco-prod person is hired. This might be an opportunity to educate the reader as to the flow of decision making and power at each of these stages. It would also be helpful to specify to what extent a sustainable film policy has been facilitated by the close cooperation of government and industry in Europe in contrast to the historical autonomy of industry from government in the United States. Finally, it seems that the issue of sustainability raises ethical questions as much as touches on morality, which the authors mention at the conclusion of their piece. Ethics in turn touches on the question of transparency and disclosure, and concrete suggestions for educating the public as to the sustainability of a given production would be helpful - e.g. what kinds of information should be included in end credits (much like as applies already to the treatment of animals)? How can films and television series be marketed in a manner that clues the consumer into their efforts to reduce the carbon footprint, and recycle production elements? There seems to be room for expansion here.
Minor suggestions: page 2, lines 86-89, define what exactly "cancel culture" means. lines 89-90 - what exactly happened to these Youtubers? not all readers will have been clued into this. page 3 line 140 clarify "contents" - do you mean "media content"? line 144 "gender perspective," do you mean "gender equity"? page 4 line 179 - specify which "talents" (acting talents, cinematographic talents, etc.) also the print in the diagram on this page is very faint. page 9, line 406 - "servers" - I presume you mean "digital servers"? line 436 "on the subject of catering" Finally, a few references you may be unaware of, Robert Sinnerbrink, CINEMATIC ETHICS (Routledge, 2016), Pat Brereton, "Eco-cinema, sustainability, and Africa," JOURNAL OF AFRICAN CINEMAS 5/2 (October, 2013). Thank you for illuminating a very murky area of innovation in film and television design and production.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
REVISED VERSION – so much longer and so much material added.
*NB I have not carried out a proof reading but do notice many ‘proofing issues’ which should be addressed – sentences that do not fully make sense and often not leading well enough into paragraphs etc.. SO please do a full and careful proof read.
Generation Z – digital Natives and especially ‘Cancel Culture’
*Very long ‘rant’ and critique of Shade Dawson and other YouTubers – DO NOT see as relevant as additional material – I would cut?
Note some argue that sustainability analysis – especially around reducing waste will ‘save the production money’…. SO not all difficult/negative as implied in the article.
*Lots of ‘best practice’ in Spain and elsewhere – should this be in the title – since focused on a region? [also watch over-use of quotes from Brennan 2016 and long lists of ‘best practice’ protocols…
*Additional refs in bibliography – need italics and sorting out…
My original worries and concerns are well enough addressed.
Author Response
Firstly, we would like to take this opportunity to thank once again the reviewers for all their comments and suggestions. It genuinely improved the outcome of our manuscript. Language proof (in particular proofread) has been done with an external service to ensure its maximum linguistic quality, as suggested by the reviewer in his last report. Through the application of the colour green and line citation, the authors have proceeded to make the following modifications:
- Concerning the references, the authors followed the journal guidelines and applied several italics, particularly regarding the titles. Please, check lines: 531,536,565,566, 570, 574,575,579,580, 581,582, 585, 588,589, and 590.
- Regarding the cancel culture exemplification through Youtubers, as not seen relevant by the reviewer and suggested to cut, the authors have eliminated the entire paragraph. Please, check lines: 122-123.
- In economic and sustainability analysis, authors have added the argument that the reviewer suggested in several instances and concretely when referring to waste as recommended. Please, check lines: 125 and 381-382.
- The authors have eliminated two Brennan’s citations to avoid overusing quotes by the same authors and summarize them by linking the different best practice protocols to avoid long lists as the reviewer recommended. Please, check lines: 294-306,314,329,361-364, 415, and 444.
- To conclude, the authors did not add Spain in the title because while it does show as assertively noted by the reviewer as best practices, it can also be extended to other regions. Moreover, countries like France and the UK also play an essential role in this area, as presented throughout the text. Nevertheless, understanding the reviewer’s concern, the authors added a clarification at the beginning of the manuscript. Please, check lines: 80, 81, and 82.
Once again, we thank all the suggestions, recommendations and corrections.
