Explain Interaction in an Interactive Film Press Kit: Show Reviewers What to Look For
Put the introduction, operating instructions and playable entry on one page. Separate first-route viewing time from total footage, and provide spoiler-free observation points with optional comparison routes.
Explain what reviewers can experience before introducing the story
An interactive film press kit should let recipients find the entry directly, understand operation, reserve enough time and identify the experience supporting your introduction. The most valuable front-page information is not branch count but “What does the viewer do, and what observable change follows?”
Arrange the reading order as one-sentence introduction, playable entry, operating rules, time definitions, observation points, then assets and contact details. Put lengthy worldbuilding and the complete branch map in attachments so reviewers are not flooded with explanation before entering the work.
The fictional teaching work The Last Screening illustrates this. A cinema is about to close; viewers decide whether the projectionist first plays a recording or questions a visitor. The case, durations, operations and version assumptions are written examples, not real user cases, tested results or product features. This is a delivery method authors can fill in manually.
Its specific task is accurate experience and description of interaction after media recipients receive the work. The kit is not a collaboration application, and one page cannot replace judgment of the work itself.
Copy the one-page template and separate facts from guidance
Fill the front page using this table. Brackets mark fields to replace with actual content before sending. State when material is unavailable rather than disguise placeholder links as deliverables.
| Field | Content to fill in |
|---|---|
| Work and version | [Title]; [delivered version and date]; [complete work or excerpt] |
| One-sentence introduction | [Who encounters what conflict]; viewers use [action] to change [visible consequence] |
| Playable entry | [Actual address]; [access conditions]; [expiry or ongoing validity] |
| How to operate | Use [device and input]; at a choice [screen state]; without input [result] |
| Time budget | First-route footage [duration range]; decision and loading time [counted separately or not] |
| Total footage | This version’s footage duration with shared segments counted once: [duration] |
| Suggested observation | Watch [information before choice] and [specific feedback afterward] |
| Optional revisit | Restart at [provided starting point]; compare [difference]; contains [spoiler level] |
| Attachments and contact | [Actual stills, synopsis, credits and other materials]; [contact channel] |
Above the table, add “For a first experience, choose naturally; see the collapsed notes below for route comparisons.” If the format cannot collapse content, move comparison guidance to page two and label it as containing spoilers.
Do not bury “login required” or “desktop version only” in attachments. These conditions determine whether reviewers can start and belong beside the entry. Every completion claim in the introduction must match the current version; mark planned additions separately.
Calculate two durations from the same segment list
The teaching structure of The Last Screening contains a four-minute shared opening, either a three-minute A segment or five-minute B segment, and a two-minute shared ending. There is only one choice; the branches are mutually exclusive and share the ending.
Route A’s footage is 4 + 3 + 2 = 9 minutes; route B is 4 + 5 + 2 = 11 minutes. Total footage counting shared content once is 4 + 3 + 5 + 2 = 14 minutes.
Write on the front page: “First-route footage: approximately 9–11 minutes, plus your decision and loading time; total footage in this version: 14 minutes, including mutually exclusive branches.” Do not simply write “14-minute film,” since a normal single route does not show all material.
Total footage here means segments accessible in this delivered version, excluding discarded shots, trailers and making-of material. Do not add the same segment again for exports in different formats or specifications. If a branch loops, explain its loop rules too; file duration cannot directly substitute for experience duration.
Suppose viewers finish A, can restart only from the beginning, then watch B. Both rounds contain 20 minutes of footage. If a separate entry actually allows direct access to B, watching only that segment adds five minutes. State that only if the entry exists. All numbers are calculations from this fictional structure, not measured viewing times.
For unfinished edits, say “estimated from the current storyboard” and list unresolved items. Time information supports reading and viewing plans rather than creating an impression of completion.
Offer observation points without writing reviewers’ conclusions
The teaching work’s introduction could be: “Before closing, the projectionist must decide how to respond to a visitor. Viewers choose whether to listen to a recording or ask a question first, changing how a pause is understood.” It locates the interaction without revealing the recording’s contents.
The operation field uses different wording: “The film pauses when choices appear; click one to continue; without a choice it stays paused. This example has no countdown; restart to compare the other route.” Story copy attracts interest; operating text removes ambiguity. Neither substitutes for the other.
Give one first-viewing task: “Notice what you already know when the visitor pauses.” On the optional revisit page, add “Choose the other option and compare whether the same response acquires a different meaning from information order.” Reviewers can judge whether the change works without accepting claims like “Every choice profoundly changes fate.”
Add a description boundary: “This excerpt shows changes in information order, not different endings.” If routes converge, this is more accurate than vague multiple-ending promotion. A route map can verify structure but exposes branches early, so make it an optional attachment rather than required reading before opening the work.
Continue delivery when the entry fails or only a recording exists
If only an operation recording is available, rename the entry “Recorded interaction demonstration” and state that the recorder made the choices and recipients cannot operate it. Recording shows images and feedback but cannot let reviewers personally judge button response or freedom of choice. Keep that boundary in the introduction.
If the work cannot currently open, provide an available linear excerpt and clearly identify its route and missing interactive steps. Do not call replacement material a complete playable version or make recipients repeatedly try a known broken entry.
Another common failure is over-detailed guidance: prescribe every click in order, then announce a freely chosen experience. If a fixed route demonstrates something, label it “Prescribed demonstration route” and permit separate exploration. If exploration is unavailable, honestly state the demonstration’s scope.
Before sending, compare the front page with current deliverables item by item. Does the entry name match actual material? Do instructions cover waiting? Do both durations use the same version? Can the observation point be found in the clip? Mark anything unchecked as pending verification rather than present the author’s expectations as facts.
A media-review section is optional. Without actual coverage, remove it rather than invent quotes, media logos or awards. The delivered page should let an unfamiliar recipient explain three things: where to enter, how to complete one viewing, and which part of the work their experience covered.
