Bit confused by the readers choice poll. Is that different from the one I've already voted on in the email?

Quoted from MarkRenshaw Bit confused by the readers choice poll. Is that different from the one I've already voted on in the email?

Although the Reader's Choice poll said more than 1 script can be selected, I only voted on the best entry.

The Emailed Poll, asked for considers and recommends.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw Bit confused by the readers choice poll. Is that different from the one I've already voted on in the email?

Readers choice is something anyone can vote on. The one you voted on via email is only for people that had a script submitted to the OWC. That's the one that matters, as far as getting the cup goes.  

Quoted from MarkRenshaw Bit confused by the readers choice poll. Is that different from the one I've already voted on in the email?

Mark,

I think everyone has answered this satisfactorily.  I just want to add that I normally don't do a "readers" choice.  However there were a number of writers that I very much respect who didn't participate in the challenge this go 'round whose opinions are important to me.  

However, Writer's Choice trumps everything (and generally speaking, I've found that the Reader's choice usually follows suit).  

- Don

Whoops! Sorry Don, somehow that e-mail explaining how the 5 review system worked got past me. I reviewed 13 so far, the 14th being "The Girl Without Hands" which happens to be my 5th assigned script, but I can't post anything on that due to the message box missing.

Quoted from Lightfoot Whoops! Sorry Don, somehow that e-mail explaining how the 5 review system worked got past me. I reviewed 13 so far, the 14th being "[Redacted]" which happens to be my 5th assigned script, but I can't post anything on that due to the message box missing.

Andrew,

You're good.  Don't worry about that review.  I redacted the name of the script since that would allow someone to work out which script you wrote.

- Don

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense now!

Very bummed about the number of reads for this OWC well after a week of being released.

14 - 22 reads is weak, to say the least, when 37 writers entered scripts.  I honestly don't get it.

I don't understand how some can say they read, but decided not to comment...just doesn't make any sense.

As I always say, IMO, it's so much better to give each and every script a chance.  If it's poor and filled with mistakes, just stop reading and comment on what you did read.

Writers need to know why you stopped.  It all helps.

I wonder if it's ever been discussed about maybe having a panel of, say, 10 judges or so, to read each and every script and judge them based on a certain list of criteria. Of course, all who entered can still read and vote for a readers choice. Just a thought.

All but one reader fulfilled Don's requirement of reading 5 scripts.

Most people don't have time to read 37 scripts. If everyone read half, in theory every script should get about 17 or 18 reads.

If we expect everyone to read 37 scripts it's going to damage the turnout in the future, because it's just too damn much.

I only read about 15. After the reveal, I will go back and read the scripts of anyone who reviewed mine but I didn't get theirs.

The writing of the ones I read was pretty good, much better than when I used to do OWCs. I don't judge the writing by rules that were created by people who can't find work in the industry or who can't get their shit produced. That's a scam that writers need to get past.

I judge the writing by whether it made the story clear and easy to visualize and smooth to read. If the writer uses writing techniques to heighten suspense, that's the effect every writer should be after.

As for story, I look for it to make me want to turn the page. Usually that means characters I want to follow, but it could mean a mystery that I find compelling. Even better would be both. Of course, a clever twist of the unexpected is much appreciated.

I gave one recommend: the Pinochio one. The story in that one is not yet fleshed out, so it's not yet effective, but with more space and time it will be, the concepts are well envisioned. And the writing itself was high quality. Here is a writer who understands what writing is supposed to do, and he/she is more interested in that than in conforming to arbitrary rules created by failed writers teaching screenwriting courses.

So IMO, the OWC was a success. Good job, everyone.

Kevin, my old friend, you have seriously got to try and stop the broken record routine.

Literally, almost every single one of your posts mentions "rules".  You just can't seem to stop.  You are so glued to these rules you hate so much that it's getting to the point of redonkulousness.

Just let it go, bro.  Please...for your own mental health...let it go.

Someone has to fight the good fight once in a while.

Quoted from leitskev Someone has to fight the good fight once in a while.

Don't worry..I always fight the good fight.

The fight you're always trying to fight is not a good fight.

I do commend you though for not using the word "rules" in your last post.  That's a great start!!  

I am confident that you have cited a nonexistent rule in more reviews this week than I have mentioned the word rule.

Quoted from leitskev I am confident that you have cited a nonexistent rule in more reviews this week than I have mentioned the word rule.

Uh oh...there you go again!  You just cited the forbidden word twice there!

Not good, bro...not good at all.  I thought you may have been recovering there for a second, but looks like I was incorrect.

I highly doubt I cited a single rule in all of my reviews.  What i cite are mistakes, and most of them are glaring mistakes that should be easily caught...or not done in teh first place.