Antibodies: Behind the Scenes by Carrick Bartle and John Bartle - Short, Comedy - The filmmakers of "Antibodies" discuss their work on the most realistic horror movie ever made.   - pdf, format

Interesting idea, I thought it was a little less than funny in execution though.
Not sure, but I think to emphasize words in dialogue you need to underline them, not capitalize them.
I think there's a better way to format the talking head bit.
I get the central joke, but it seems like there wasn't any other jokes throughout to build on it.  I think there were a lot more funny observations to be made about horror movies, at least enough to fill six pages.

Like the idea alot, and its well written and smooth, just wasnt laughing too much.

I'm thinking that maybe the idea for this was funnier in your head than how it translated on paper. I think it's an interesting premise but it didn't really go anywhere and I didn't laugh at any of it. It has potential but I think you need to explore it further and either come up with a story or some jokes, preferably both.

One thing I'd suggest is either call your character Max or Director, and not keep swapping between the two. In dialogue you have him as Director but in the narrative refer to him as Max and I had to check to make sure it was the same person.

On the first page I think you overdo the black screen effect. We hear all these different voices but don't see anything, give us some visuals to grab our attention. If you are talking about quarantines and lootings then why not show us this?

The way you have ended the script it is not clear that the story is over. You should have Fade Out or at least something to indicate that the script is finished.

Cheers,
Tim.

Thanks for the feedback, guys!  Sounds like it needs a comedy pass....

Hey rickety.

What is your background?

This played out pretty funny for me, though I suspect I will be in the minority.

I have a scientific background, and I want to let you know that your scientific dialogue is just crazy enough to work.  I mean, it is meant to be silly, of course, but it feels right enough.  I had no problems with any of it, though I suspect "poly-specificity" might be an oxymoron -- intentional or not, I wonder.

I loved that your actor got a manuscript published, and it is those sorts of details that lead me to wonder about your background.

No flaws in formatting jumped out at me -- and the cuts and images you are trying to convey here are sometimes complex -- so good job there, as well.

I suspect this might work better on the screen than on paper, but I also suspect you will have many in your audience similar to the non-scientists you portray in the script -- scratching their heads and wondering what is supposed to be amusing about any of this.

But I liked it well enough, for whatever that is worth.

Thanks, bert!!  

I don't have a scientific background at all, but one of my oldest friends is a PhD candidate in neuroscience, so I'm sure that everything I've ever heard from him influenced this.  

I gotta say I'm pretty relieved that you thought it was funny.  It seems like it's 50-50 now with people who do and people who don't.  And the other people in the group aren't scientists, so I'm pretty assured that the enjoyment of it won't be fully restricted to people involved in science (like the movie Antibodies itself, haha).  I think it'll be funnier on screen, too.  I guess we'll see!

I totally lifted "poly-specificity" (and all the jargon) from a study, so it's legit.  Now that you mention it, though, yeah, it sounds like a total oxymoron.  

ricketybridge,

I liked this - a lot, actually.

First, to address some of the earlier comments where people said they did not laugh - neither did I, exactly. I chuckled a few times to myself, such as when the audience goes "oohhhh" (they're all scientists - brilliant!) or when the audience member says they left it open for a sequel. But that's okay.  Very few writers other than Woody Allen can get people to laugh consistently from just the written word.

I have a feeling this will play much better on the screen. I liken it to reading an SNL or Python sketch - it's likely that the "funny" wouldn't jump off the page, but when you see the piece acted out, it becomes funny.  This is the case here because this is more satirical than it is anything else.

Which is what I liked about it.  You skewered two of the things I dislike the most in the movie world - cheap knockoff horror films, and the "Blair Witch", "Paranormal Activity" craze.

The only quibble I have is that on page one I'm not sure you actually ever faded in. I kept looking for a shift from black screen, and we get dialogue that goes from (V.O.) to on-screen, yet no official "white screen".

Other than that, you have my congratulations on an ambitious and creative endeavor and well-structured piece of satire.

AJR

Ooh, thanks AJR.    I am yet more reassured.  And in total agreement.  You're right: it's not supposed to be roll-on-the-floor funny; it just cracks me up a bit.

We're actually going into pre-production on this, so I'd be really curious to see what y'all think of it acted out.  

Really funny that you hate "Paranormal Activity" and "Blair Witch", since I actually love those movies.    I DO, however, hate the RAMPANT overuse of that type of filmmaking (it reached its nadir with Cloverfield probably), and feel like it's FAAARR overstayed its welcome.    

Thanks!!

While this came off as somewhat realistic, I think the realism hurt the story.  Maybe it's because I'm not a scientist, but I found it a dull read.  The script was a one trick pony and the trick wasn't that great.

Steve Martin, when he did stand up, did a plumber's joke because there was a plumber's convention in town and he heard they were coming to his show.  He shot of a joke, filled with plumbing jargon, that made no sense to laypeople.  His joke worked because it was about fifteen seconds long; this script didn't because it ran much longer.

I thought that the character development needed help. THe characters were very two-dimensional and I couldn't tell one apart from the other.

I wish I could be more constructive about this script.  Hopefully, you can understand what I'm saying and use it should you choose to rewrite this.


Phil  

I guess what I was trying to say was that the appeal of this is that the premise is funny, not the individual lines...

A good definition of satire is just that - that the premise is outrageous, and everything that happens within that premise is said and done completely seriously...

The Pythons were of course the masters at it.  There were no "jokes" told in most of their skits - the joke was the absurd premise.

Oh and by the way I never saw "Paranormal", only "Blair Witch", and more out of curiosity than anything.

AJR