When watching the show I remember hearing the "tree knocks" and thinking how crisp they were, and wondering if they had parabolic or some other kind of mics to get the knocks that clear. They flashed a ton of cool high tech equipment in the show so I figured maybe they had microphones or shotgun mics near the place the knocks were heard. But those knocks, they sounded like something from a royalty free production reel.
Now we find out the production company "apparently" (according to Matt Moneymaker, the team leader) inserted the knocks after the fact. LOL According to Moneymaker, he came up with Tree Knocking, something that pre-dates him by about a decade.
On one hand I'm thinking, "What did you expect, it's entertainment!" Yet on the other to present material that is fabricated and then promote it, and Know about it...well, that says a lot about the team at the scene.
This makes me wonder if a production person conveniently arranged for them to find prints? Prints with clearly defined toes and such? Or had inserted someone on the trail so their thermal image could be caught on tape while the caravan drove by??
This was not a documentary, docu-drama, or even a mocu-mentary. It now seems it was a movie, carefully planned to present all of the assumed evidence in the field.
In one episode they had a fuzzy film, tree knocks, thermal images of something, and howls. What are the odds?
I've come to expect elevated drama in these shows. Night vision shots of glowing eyed researchers calling into the sky while we look up their noses. But this was just junk.
I remember a little show called In Search Of, they had no budget and rarely even showed a guy in a costume during b-roll. If they did, you clearly knew it was a recreation. They told the story without having to resort to night shots and caravans or high tech gear.
Keep it simple.
If they needed to show a creature they simply showed the camera moving through the woods. The point of view of the animal. Because you never saw it, it intrigued you. The interviews were poignant, the narration kept you involved. And the music was just dramatic enough to get a point across. It was a documentary with little docu-drama.Today's shows suck. They start weak and get worse. They rely too much on fluff and CGI effects, as if the audience will not tune in unless they have a ton of graphics and quick editing. If "The Legend of Boggy Creek" were filmed today it would never have found success. That program was timeless because of what it didn't show, not what it did. You only got a glimpse of the creature and that was enough to scare you. Right when you were getting nervous about the movie some campy song came on that lulled you back to calm, then more intrigue brought you back to the edge of your chair. That is why it's a classic, the director made you feel emotions at the right times.
One day someone is going to go back to the old "In Search Of", "Mysterious Monsters" and other films to study how to do it right. Perhaps then we will get a decent show about Bigfoot on TV.
I'll tell you what this show was designed to do. It was made to get teenagers excited about going out and looking for Sasquatch. It has the whole teenager / pre-teen feel of a group of kids finding all kinds of neat stuff on a camping trip. Kids will watch this and can't wait to get into the woods. You could sell all kinds of camping gear and snacks during this show! This show would fit well on Nickelodeon.
All they need is for Moneymaker to say, "Ok now troops we are going to get some Sasquatch prints, first one to cast it gets a nifty new badge and decoder ring!"
These production companies have seen the success of ghost hunting shows and they are trying to start a new fad, but with Bigfoot instead of ghosts. They have drained that market dry.
Create a market. Create a genre. The problem is that darn sasquatch just won't cooperate!
If they did show reality, endless nights where nothing happens and days or weeks spent with nary a print or sign then their show is bust. I feel sorry for the girl on the show who couldn't believe all the things they were finding.
Guess what, they weren't! She was right to be critical and Moneymaker lambasted her for it, with statements like, "Do you belieeeve now???" As if being a bit skeptical was not allowed.
Yes, sometimes people do go out and find tons of evidence but rarely does it happen the first trip into a new area.
Then there is the commentary as they try to 'find bigfoot', like the radio talk, "I think there's a squatch in these woods!" Not a Sasquatch or even a Bigfoot but a "Squatch". Bravado talk designed to make them seem cool but comes across as a bunch of idiots wandering around with too many toys to play with.
What the heck is a "Squatch" anyway, sounds like someone sat on a whoopee cushion.
They wear these groovy back packs with night vision cameras and a big pole hanging over them, just the thing you need to get caught up in a tree limb. Looks like something out of ghostbusters! I can just see your "squatch" ripping that thing off your back as you run away. LOL
No one ran toward the sound they heard. In the voice of the church lady, "Why is that???"
This show had several problems, not the least of which was lack of any real research. Some of these guys probably thought it would be the start of a new career, being a reality TV star. But sadly they lost the very reason and principles of why they are looking for the creature in the first place. I feel sorry for them because this could have been a hit. They had all the equipment to make a good show. Unfortunately they had no substance. And I feel they were being played by the production company and perhaps their leader as well.
They came across, at least to me, as a bunch of guys into it to make money and be TV stars, not "Find Bigfoot."
This show will run it's five episodes and who knows, maybe it will inspire some teenagers to go look for themselves. It may sell and continue to become a series. But don't look for any new revelations in this mirage. And if they do "Find Bigfoot" then question everything they present.
Sorry for the rant...
J.
I agree 100%, I think that if they ever really get any actual evidence It will be purly by accident.
ReplyDelete