dmaker Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 ^^ Very good point Melissa. Many documentaries follow someone around and it's clear to the viewers and the narrator that the subject is not being portrayed in the light they think they are. I could totally see something like that with RD and this film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The term "working title" just means they haven't decided 100% on what they are actually going to call the movie when it debuts, or the title is still in legal limbo for some reason. Lots of films have working titles so as to disguise the true film's content. For instance, usually the Star Trek films are called something else at first until the leaks get out, to squash speculation. It could very well be something completely different.... and that leads to some delicious speculation, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 This entire story is nothing more than a way for him to feed his insatiable need for attention and hopefully to bilk more idiots out of $$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The BFI was set up to help British film/documentary makers. They want British films to be successful because of the revenues it generates and how it helps the economy and the kudos British films get worldwide if they are successful. Successful films mean more films/documentaries being made and it goes on. They don't say "We want you to make some money with your film, but not too much". Minnow make "sensitive and intelligent" films, with a focus on the human element to a story. Do you think they went to the BFI to say they would make a film that ridiculed people? For me, no they wouldn't. To me, it makes absolute sense that they are making a film that shows Rick Dyer in a sympathetic way - but clearly as someone who is obsessed. Lee Exactly Lee. They would not want to be seen to promote a film that would have a cheap hoax contained within it, they wouldnt want to promote a film that laughed at minority of people who believed in Bigfoot. No way! There is a paranoid edge to us footers, we are always looking behind our backs nervously that someone may be laughing and some people think this film is going to do just that. I have no idea exactly how this film will pan out, but I swear on my British cotton socks that this film company would not deliberately make a film that would parody the bigfoot community. Thats sounds more like a film Sasha Baron Cohen would make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Does anyone here remember an interview about a year ago with some guys who were here in the states making a documentary? I don't know if it was that long ago or not, but I saw it and have not been able to find it again. I remember it was an interview of 3 or 4 guys who had accents and they were over here making a documentary about bigfoot researchers. I think they were 30ish and they were sitting in an RV or something like that. I can't remember it that well and don't remember their exact accent or where they were from. There is another documentary called Squatchin and it is also about bigfoot researchers so the interview may have been the guys doing that documentary. Derek Randles is in that documentary and I'm pretty positive it is a different documentary than the one Minnow films is doing. Does anyone know who is making the Squatchin documentary and when it is coming out. They released a well produced trailer for it last spring or summer, but I haven't heard anything else. Actually, I seem to recall one of the guys making that movie joined this forum and talked a little about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The term "working title" just means they haven't decided 100% on what they are actually going to call the movie when it debuts, or the title is still in legal limbo for some reason. Lots of films have working titles so as to disguise the true film's content. For instance, usually the Star Trek films are called something else at first until the leaks get out, to squash speculation. It could very well be something completely different.... and that leads to some delicious speculation, doesn't it? Yes I think that the fact that it still has a working title suggests they are still not sure where the film is going (storyline I mean) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I'm sorry but RD in a sensitive way? There are articles that comment on his arrest record for aggravated assault on a pregnant woman, his various fraudulent business endeavors, his previous record of BF hoaxing, etc. I just don't see him in a sympathetic, Quixotic light tilting at BF windmills. He seems more like a..well something I probably can't say on this board... There are plenty of others who do fit the Quixotic mold that they could have chosen to involve in their film. I agree, dmaker. But we know about him because of his involvement in the Bigfoot community. In my opinion, he isn't the full shilling, and if he genuinely isn't, then some people may look on him sympathetically. Exactly Lee. They would not want to be seen to promote a film that would have a cheap hoax contained within it, they wouldnt want to promote a film that laughed at minority of people who believed in Bigfoot. No way! There is a paranoid edge to us footers, we are always looking behind our backs nervously that someone may be laughing and some people think this film is going to do just that. I have no idea exactly how this film will pan out, but I swear on my British cotton socks that this film company would not deliberately make a film that would parody the bigfoot community. Thats sounds more like a film Sasha Baron Cohen would make? Who is saying it is a film that parodies the Bigfoot community? It is not a spoof, we can assume. What if the film has one element that shows how an obsessed hoaxer works? What his mindset is? What motivates him to try and do it time after time? To see that he is so obsessed, he will do anything to fool people or get his 15 minutes of fame? That is interesting, fascinating perhaps, whether you love or hate Dyer. If the hoax is an essential part of the film as a whole, to show the context of the lengths people would go to, then it is a necessary part. The BFI wouldn't veto that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Exactly Lee. They would not want to be seen to promote a film that would have a cheap hoax contained within it, they wouldnt want to promote a film that laughed at minority of people who believed in Bigfoot. No way! There is a paranoid edge to us footers, we are always looking behind our backs nervously that someone may be laughing and some people think this film is going to do just that. I have no idea exactly how this film will pan out, but I swear on my British cotton socks that this film company would not deliberately make a film that would parody the bigfoot community. Thats sounds more like a film Sasha Baron Cohen would make? Read this again.. Look at the words used. A fascinating and touching portrait of men who are obsessed with monsters and their adventures to find them This could go either way... If I were involved in this - I would be VERY worried this was more about them psycho analyzing me with voice overs - than it is about what we really do in the woods. But if it is their intent to "delve into the mind of a bigfooter" - they are right, Rick Dyers mind would be an interesting place - but not a place I would want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 You got it. A man obsessed with hoaxing the bigfoot community and his descent into psychological meltdown trying to do it is both fascinating and touching. I'm not sure how seeing someone shoot a defenceless creature in cold blood, one that could be our closest relative, would be touching. Fascinating? Maybe to bloodthirsty ghouls. Well exactly - if a defenseless creature wasnt shot in cold blood but RD is telling everyone is was, then Minnow or 'the film company' would come forward and say that he is lying about their film. This is what I was trying to say exactly.btw...their description of the film hasnt changed for months now and I think was written way back and left hanging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thats a good point JRid. Maybe they too have signed NDA's.....hehe Note: Working Title. Note: ..'their adventures to find them'. Note: no mention of hoaxes Note: Fascinating and touching NOT Scandalous and sensational Note: The point of me posting that was to show that the documentary was about finding monsters...not just about finding bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Read this again.. Look at the words used. This could go either way... If I were involved in this - I would be VERY worried this was more about them psycho analyzing me with voice overs - than it is about what we really do in the woods. But if it is their intent to "delve into the mind of a bigfooter" - they are right, Rick Dyers mind would be an interesting place - but not a place I would want to go. Everyone has their obsessions whether its beer, sex, tv, music, fashion, cars, food etc etc....they chose Bigfooters because our obsession is more interesting and unusual. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Why are you so convinced Minnow Films would come forward and deny RD's claims when they are getting free publicity? They are not the one's making any claims, so they are not morally or legally bound to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Well exactly - if a defenseless creature wasnt shot in cold blood but RD is telling everyone is was, then Minnow or 'the film company' would come forward and say that he is lying about their film. This is what I was trying to say exactly. No they wouldn't, because it's a film about the lengths hoaxers will go to to make people believe them. That's the point JackiLB! Rick says "I'm gonna fool all these people by telling them I shot a Bigfoot. Watch how many believe me". The film company aren't going to come out, before the film has been released, to say "No he didn't". That would spoil the whole film and like simplyskyla says, they are not the ones making the claims so don't have to say anything. Lee Edited January 24, 2013 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Definition of the word "Documentary" presenting factual material with little or no fictional additions It does not say - No fictional additions. It says - little. You define little.. If word were to get out that this film had the body of a dead bigfoot - there is no way this company would say a word about it not being true - until the movie hit the theaters. That would draw people in just with the thought that it might be true. That is box office gold there. If it is not true, and they know it - there will be pressers and such so they can tell their side and how the body thing happened - and how they couldn't believe people bought into the story before the documentary was released ----- which I am sure they will put their own spin on. Add in other mythical creatures and the people who hunt for them - and this very well could be a well rounded - in your face - psychological evaluation of us all..... Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Why are you so convinced Minnow Films would come forward and deny RD's claims when they are getting free publicity? They are not the one's making any claims, so they are not morally or legally bound to do so. Because if the claims were false and there wasnt a bloody thirsty shooting scene, then it would portray their film in the wrong light. And if RD is lying, they could drum up even more publicity by coming forward and saying no this never happened? No they wouldn't, because it's a film about the lengths hoaxers will go to to make people believe them. That's the point JackiLB! Rick says "I'm gonna fool all these people by telling them I shot a Bigfoot. Watch how many believe me". He's been successful it seems. Lee No no no. Stop mentioning the word hoax as that is just a rumour. Only mention hoax if you have definitive proof that their film is about hoaxers!!!....where did RD says that....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts