All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I know... That's why most people here only read scripts with a user name after the author's name unless it's a script that really catch their interest and they decide to read it anyway.
If I read something and the person who wrote it won't even bother to say thanks, I usually delete my comments.
My main gripe at the moiment is the posting of scripts(normal not OWC) that aren't by any of the SS people. Some guys are good enough to review them but there's buckley's of there being a reply does Don post scripts he finds on the Net? How does this work? If there's no username, its odds on the writer isn't around.
Stevie,
The unproduced scripts posted to SimplyScripts come from writer submissions. I don't go trolling the 'net for unproduced scripts and post 'em up here.
To Pia's point, you don't have to be a member of the forum to post a script to the site. I do encourage folks to register to the site and read and review the work of other people.
With regard to usernames, If a user gives me a username in the submission, generally I'll add the username to the written by name. However, in some cases, like Shelton or Michael Cornetto, their username is close enough to their real name that I don't post it.
As to the reading and reviewing. I really do appreciate those folks who read them all. I skim through all of them, but I can only do a deep dive on so many. So, I depend on feedback from the 'super reviewers' when it comes to the script selection process.
Also, at the end of hte week, I'll be asking the writers to tell me, of the scripts you have read which ones did you like the best.
That's nothing -- check out this stat from the little-seen "Extensive Statistics" board -- the bottom of the home page can link you there if you are a stats geek like myself. There are some interesting things there.
Quoted from Extensive Statistics
162 users, Today, 5:16pm
That's a new record. Don must be doing something right haha.
Maybe I've just been lucky with my picks, but I have voted 5 stars on more scripts than I normally do in the OWC. Pretty good quality on the scripts so far!
I haven't encountered any real turkeys either. Great job people!
Reading alot of good scripts, but based on how good they are, I know many of the authors were smart enough to realize they were missing an important piece to a rom dramedy.
I would guess maybe 20% of the scripts I've read so far made an attempt to convey romance, drama, and comedy. Feels like some people are just writing in their comfortable realm.
If that was the case, I would have wrote a story about a witch in the woods whoom if you hear her sing, you die...
Maybe i'll go write that right now....
This was my first OWC. Was the point just to get us all to write or avtually try to create something with the parameters what have been set-up??
I'm a little confused, no harm, but i would've like to see everyone try to squeeze all that in 12 pgs. It's a motherfucker.
Reading alot of good scripts, but based on how good they are, I know many of the authors were smart enough to realize they were missing an important piece to a rom dramedy.
I would guess maybe 20% of the scripts I've read so far made an attempt to convey romance, drama, and comedy. Feels like some people are just writing in their comfortable realm.
If that was the case, I would have wrote a story about a witch in the woods whoom if you hear her sing, you die...
Maybe i'll go write that right now....
This was my first OWC. Was the point just to get us all to write or avtually try to create something with the parameters what have been set-up??
I'm a little confused, no harm, but i would've like to see everyone try to squeeze all that in 12 pgs. It's a motherfucker.
As to the intentions behind the OWC, that's a good question. The perfect person to ask would be Phil - since I think he was central to its introduction - but I don't know if he's around on the site right now.
I think it's a bit of both. It's a way to focus everyone's efforts on writing and reviewing, but also a chance for people to push themselves and try to meet a brief that might be slightly out of their comfort zone. Just because people haven't managed to completely meet the criteria doesn't necessarily mean they didn't try to, though. It's a tough balancing act, and some may have just nobly failed. I think this is an example of an exercise that has produced a lot of scripts that'll be a whole lot better with just a couple of re-writes...most are fundamentally good, but just missing that extra ingredient that'd really make them zing.
I think the most interesting point to come out of everyone's reviews, and it's something I've tried to raise before but seemed to be ignored (Shelton raised it first) is what exactly 'dramedy' means. Some people seem to be reviewing the entries as if they're looking for the next Richard Curtis script. How much comedy does a dramedy need for it to move out of being a straightforward drama? And on the other hand, at what point does the comedy out-muscle the drama, and the thing ends up not being 'dramatic' enough? That's the interesting part...at least to me.
As to the intentions behind the OWC, that's a good question. The perfect person to ask would be Phil - since I think he was central to its introduction - but I don't know if he's around on the site right now.
I think it's a bit of both. It's a way to focus everyone's efforts on writing and reviewing, but also a chance for people to push themselves and try to meet a brief that might be slightly out of their comfort zone. Just because people haven't managed to completely meet the criteria doesn't necessarily mean they didn't try to, though. It's a tough balancing act, and some may have just nobly failed. I think this is an example of an exercise that has produced a lot of scripts that'll be a whole lot better with just a couple of re-writes...most are fundamentally good, but just missing that extra ingredient that'd really make them zing.
I think the most interesting point to come out of everyone's reviews, and it's something I've tried to raise before but seemed to be ignored (Shelton raised it first) is what exactly 'dramedy' means. Some people seem to be reviewing the entries as if they're looking for the next Richard Curtis script. How much comedy does a dramedy need for it to move out of being a straightforward drama? And on the other hand, at what point does the comedy out-muscle the drama, and the thing ends up not being 'dramatic' enough? That's the interesting part...at least to me.
I agree. These kinds of questions and trying to draw boundaries of definition are just one of the extremely positive things that come out of an exercise like this.
It's what makes makes this virtual environment so special.