Looking For Bigfoot by Ian Courter (Iancou) - Short, Comedy - Reporter Elaine Sanchez returns to the field to document scientists looking for bigfoot and misses the whole event. 7 pages - pdf, format 8)

"Loraine's cheeks twitch slightly!"  - SHE BOUT TO TURN INTO THE BIGFOOT?! l  ;)

I see where you were going with this. If it was filmed it would be funny.

When you said to think of a  guy in a bigfoot costume running around the kids, i thought he was fake. But he turned out to be real. I don't think that description helped. It was funny, but I thought it was misleading.

I also don't get the cheek twitch. I mean I don't think the cheek twitches unless you have a problem.

Hey Ian

Had a read, a few thoughts, just my opinion of course...

No need for Title on anything other than title page.

Some of the dialogue doesn't read/scan well, e.g. 'trying to debunk rumours' could be re-phrased.

The description 'science geek and outdoorsman' seemed contradictory, one implies meek and mild, glasses and a clipboard - the other rugged and axe wielding.

Dr Martin calls Lorraine, Lori

The extra bit about catching a live one doesn't ring true from a scientist.

The bracketed reference to a man in a bigfoot suit isn't needed, unless it is a man in a bigfoot suit?

Overall, need some work/polishing... but you've written it in an nicely visual way and would film well.

Anthony

Wow... those were some quick responses. Thanks for the reviews. Now onto the details.

This is a sequel to my previous "Interview with a Ventriloquist" short which I filmed. So, the reason for her twitch is because Larry the Ventriloquist called her "Lori". I see that "Looking for Bigfoot" should stand alone as the twitch has no meaning unless the first one has been viewed. As for the "think guy in a bigfoot costume", my intent was to film that as well, so that is more of a director's note than the screenwriter's. Lorraine definitely has a problem as Larry drove her to the point of beating him up, and she ended up doing the farm report after that.

Anthony, I had not gotten as far along with this one as I had the previous Lorraine script. Good catches on the dialogue and other points. Although I have say that I have seen some really nerdy guys do the outdoorsmen thing, i.e., birdwatchers, paleontologists (Phil Curry), butterfly collectors, etc.

Thanks again, gentlemen. I have some work to do.

Ian

No problem Ian, happy to give it a read.

My problem with outdoorsmen may be purely personal, but the word just conjured up lumberjack for me... Point taken re birdwatchers etc... May or may not have fit into one of those categories in my youth :-)

Anthony

Hi Ian,

Goofy little story. Amusing ending.

IMO, you use b.g. too much. I'd find another way to say the action is there than using b.g. that much.

I don't think BEAT needs caps.

On pg 1, when you cut to earlier in the day, is Lorraine interviewing him then as well? Is this pre-taped footage we're watching? Seems a bit confusing to me. I think you need to label this as FLASHBACK, next line NATIONAL PARK - EARLIER, then end it with a RETURN TO SCENE.

MARTIN
(Irritated)
I don't have one yet. We just got here.

Here, a good response. It's funny. But I think you bury the punch line. This would work better, I feel, with just one of the two sentences.

Lorraine's dialogue can be tightened up. She needs a more deadpan delivery, but sometimes she just goes on a bit too long.

Anyway, good effort. It is funny, just correct formatting issues and tighten this up. Hope this helps.

Steve

Ian,

Re my earlier post...

NATIONAL PARK - EARLIER

should actually be written in either a SUPER or TITLE, with Earlier That Day following. The way you have it now it only lets the reader know its earlier, but not the viewer. Following that scene, then you can add a RETURN TO SCENE.

Steve

Ian

“The word "Live" flashes in one corner.”

- Nitpicky I know but since you’ve added this touch, it’d probably be no harm to include some indication that we are looking through the perspective of a camera screen.

MARTIN (CONT'D)
We're here to definitively prove
whether or not bigfoot exists.

- This reads like a very unscientific (and frankly illogical) thing to say. I mean, no matter what kind of super advanced cameras they have, Bigfoot’s existence can’t be “definitively” proven unless they do actually film it. Because if they don’t, the believers will just say it evaded them yet again. Its the number 1 rule of thumb concerning these myths. ;)

LORRAINE
Do you believe bigfoots...
bigfeet... whatever

- Ha, I chuckled at her botched pluralisation.

Some potential here for a laugh but the ending ultimately fell flat for me, obvious and predictable. Plus, you try to derive comedy from the fact that Lorraine has missed the whole thing due to her nay saying but since the scientists are celebrating they must have captured it on their own cameras so Lorraine missing it is really a moot point in the end. Thus, the humour doesn't work.

How about Lorraine possesses the only camera?  She is a part of the scientist’s crew for that very reason (a documentary filmmaker or something) to record the footage if Bigfoot shows up. You could insert a quick transition of scenes after her interview with Dr. Trevor Martin where they are waiting and waiting but nothing is happening.

Finally, as you've written it, she loses patience/hope/faith in the expedition and starts to recite her skeptical monologue while all hell breaks loose behind her. Then, only after finishing her rant, does she realize the camera was never turned on. She’s pissed about having to repeat her monologue but we know that’s immaterial compared to what she’s missed going on behind her. Hard evidence of Bigfoot eludes us once more.

However, I still think even with those changes that readers will see this coming from page 1.

Best of luck with it.

Col.

Thanks Steven and Col for the feedback. Steven, WRT b.g. and BEAT, I wrestled with those. Also, as for the punchline, I am leaning towards "I just got here." And I knew I needed to revise the flashback, I was just unsure how... until now.

Now, Col, you brought up an interesting twist I had not considered in the idea of Lorraine forgetting to turn the camera on and not capturing the "attack" on film... er, tape... whatever. I am showing my age now. Anyway, that is an angle (no pun intended) I am seriously considering.

Thank you both for the insights and suggestions. I look forward to reading your works as well.

Ian

Hey Ian, just gave this a read.

As this is viewed through the camera I think you might need something in the slug to say so?  This is only because I didn't realise this until you put 'Live flashes in the corner'.

Although I think this [think a man in a bigfoot suit running around kids] is funny, I've never been a fan of things like it.  I always try to stay clear of things like this.  Writers preference though.  Actually though I think a giant man in a bigfoot suit would look pretty funny and add to the ridiculousness of the story.

I quite enjoyed this, but I agree with Col when he says he saw the ending coming...but is that a bad thing in a 3 pager?

Alffy,

Sorry for the delay in saying thanks.

Yep, this one was a toughie. I only mentioned the bigfoot costume with a director's eye... usually a mistake in a script, but I actually intended to film this one as a sequel to "Interview with a Ventriloquist", however, everything else in life superseded that idea. The issue is having to find some bloke that's 2 1/2 meters tall or getting a normal-sized person into a suit. I would want to film it with the bigfoot running amok about 300 meters in the background and over Lorraine's shoulder. I have my work cut out for me.

Thanks for taking the time to look it over and providing the feedback.

Ian

Hey Ian,

This was a quick read at 4 pages... the writing was good enough and the dialogue was fine. The "bigfoots/bigfeet" made me smile. This felt more like a sketch in my opinion, especially with your description of Bigfoot being a man in a bigfoot suit running with kids.

But the payoff just didn't feel justified. Yes, you establish the news reporter as a doubter and through her behavior, she thinks it's silly. Meanwhile, while she's making her point and saying that the search is most likely "fruitless", scientists are tackling big foot in the background in a slapstick kind of fashion. But...

It's all caught on camera. So even though she missed it and was proven wrong while she was dismissing the whole bigfoot search, the footage was captured. I know that it makes her look stupid because everyone sees this happening but her, but still feels a bit flat payoff wise and comically.

I feel like the best way to make this work is to have the news reporter tell the camera man to cut camera. Meanwhile, while the camera is off, she talks about how stupid this whole thing is and complains about why the network always sends her out to do stupid stories such as this one. All the while, Bigfoot is in the background getting away...

-- Michael

Michael,

Thanks for taking time to read it over. You hit the nail on the head with your take on how to address the bigfoot rampage and her going off. Sometimes the most obvious answers are the hardest to see, especially when the writer is too close to the work.

I am in the process of narrowing the focus of the script and fleshing out Lorraine's character. The dilemma is that I have two Lorraine Sanchez scripts I am revising, and I have even thought up a third. So, I am wrestling with the idea of turning these stories into a feature length comedy. Decisions. Decisions. Decisions.

Appreciate the feedback. Also, I look forward to seeing The Suicide Theory.

Ian

Ian,

Here are a few notes I took while reading your script:  Looking For Bigfoot

I was hoping for more, however, I wasn't disappointed.  There's humor here but it's nothing new.

Jordan

If you feel like there's a story there, go for it, dude. But I would use a stronger payoff if you do a feature length version... of course, I haven't read the other two scripts, so I'm not sure how much into detail you've gone with this character in particular. She seems a bit thin, but then again, that's just in this particular script. Good luck with the rewrites! And thanks about The Suicide Theory, we've finished our film festival run and are now focusing on distribution... we got a bunch of offers from what I hear, even turned down the grand prize from one of the festivals we won, which was a distribution deal with Gravitas Ventures. Just getting the best deal possible... but it will be out sometime in 2015 with a solid chance of a limited theater release.

Keep me posted on rewrites, dude.

-- Michael

Jordan,

Thanks for the read through and notes. The story started out as practice for improving my scriptwriting in general and morphed into an actual project. The dilemma is how far to polish this one and when to return to my feature-length scripts. Oh, well. It's good to have such a choice than for me to be suffering writer's block or lacking ideas altogether. I've been there before and it isn't fun.

Ian

Here's the revision to the 1st draft. I hesitate to call it a 2nd draft, but the rewrite is so extensive that is effectively what it is. Thanks again to all of you that gave it a read.

Just wanted to say thanks again to everybody for the feedback and here is the result of your suggestions. I had originally written this as an exercise/practice and it turned into something else entirely.

Ian