Mission to Earth

1)Using “Mission to Earth” as an example, note what is new or different about digital cinema compared to traditional filmmaking? Consider the story and appearance of the film.
Traditional film making usually has a clear flow of the story, with lots of conversation. From the "Mission to Earth", it much depends on the narration, and no conversation at all. The flow of "Mission to Earth" is not clear. It's hard to read the story without the narration.

Unlike traditional filmmaking, digital cinema can depend more on the technology."Mission to Earth" uses a kind of software to "controls the screen layout, the number of windows and their content".(1) With using the software, the author can select the scenes randomly and chop as many numbers of scenes as he can, then arranging the order as what he wishes to.
As "Mission to Earth" only has narrations, this also helps cutting the scenes into different parts not in a strange way. Traditional films have lots of conversation. As a result, if we chop into different parts, the conversation may become strange, and become another story. For "Mission to Earth", without conversation and the director adds narrations in further stage.

Digital cinema uses computer to create artificial effects, and repeats the same patterns. However, traditional cinema adds less computer-artificial effects. Traditional ones only use computer to add the special effects, like 3D effect, background, but these cannot become the major scenes like what digital cinema does.

2) What other art forms (eg film, digital art, painting, websites etc) does this film remind you of? Explain the similarity.
This film reminds me digital art, as the film creates some scenes that look like the wallpaper with repeated patterns. Also, it makes me think of Youtube, or similar video website. The screen of the video for both”Mssion to Earth” and Youtube is not located at the center. Near the screen, there are some little rectangular pictures in the sides.