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.
Pathetic! Absolutely terrible on the part of those that entered. Even worse, several peeps who did not enter did provide feedback.
I honestly do not get it, and I'm honestly not happy.
WEAK!!!!!!!
I thought so too. Kind of hoping that there is a last minute charge in terms of posts. It is a bit disheartening. I am naive. I always think that 30 entries are going to illicit a min of 20 responses. This is especially weak in that some of the comments are from peeps who did not even enter. Alas.
Probably 19 is a better number in terms of review - 3 of the posts - including one of mine - had nothing to with the script (side debate on the Priest issue). So the max is really 19. Sad. I can't see how one can't read/comment on a min of 15 - at least 10!
Probably 19 is a better number in terms of review - 3 of the posts - including one of mine - had nothing to with the script (side debate on the Priest issue). So the max is really 19. Sad. I can't see how one can't read/comment on a min of 15 - at least 10!
Pathetic! Absolutely terrible on the part of those that entered. Even worse, several peeps who did not enter did provide feedback.
I honestly do not get it, and I'm honestly not happy.
WEAK!!!!!!!
It is this kind of vitriol that is the reason I only do these once a quarter. Based in this bullying that I am seeing, this may be the last one for a while. I am not sure who elected you to pass judgement and berate folks on the quality of their reviews. You do realize that this only drives people away. It reduces the number of folks leaving comments.
Not sure why you are sabotaging these challenges, but I think you have succeeded.
It is this kind of vitriol that is the reason I only do these once a quarter. Based in this bullying that I am seeing, this may be the last one for a while. I am not sure who elected you to pass judgement and berate folks on the quality of their reviews. You do realize that this only drives people away. It reduces the number of folks leaving comments.
Not sure why you are sabotaging these challenges, but I think you have succeeded.
- Don
I'll bow out then, Don. I guess it's not worth my time or effort.
I don't think Jeff is deliberately sabotaging the challenges - that's a little unfair. In his own way, he's trying to help by 'encouraging' others to participate more.
Whether or not he is actually sabotaging them is a different matter. I suppose we should look at the evidence of previous OWCs. Is this one much different from any of the others? I don't think so. Maybe a little light in terms of entries but not by much. 30 as opposed to 36.
The reviews and the arguments of non-reviews come up every OWC. Jeff lays his usual guilt trip on people and maybe this encourages one or two to make some extra time. I don't believe that he is in any way to blame for the light attendance this time around.
I didn't participate because I didn't like the line of dialogue at the end. If I'm being paid, then yes, I'll write whatever I'm told to and I'll find a way to make it work. I know I can do that and don't need the practise. Giving myself a headache for free isn't something I was down with. I imagine a couple others felt the same.
Pathetic! Absolutely terrible on the part of those that entered. Even worse, several peeps who did not enter did provide feedback.
I honestly do not get it, and I'm honestly not happy.
WEAK!!!!!!!
Is it just me or does this read like a Donald Trump tweet? Come to think of is, has anyone seen Jeff and Trump in the same room together?!
Seriously guys, this is a free challenge, with free feedback, all on a voluntary basis. It is suggested that people who enter review at least three but there's no hard rules. Just treat it like a bit of fun and more people may be encouraged to take part more.
-Mark
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
I just read the Touche thread and yeah, I can see that Jeff has gone a little off the rails in there. In my opinion, the best feedback we can have as writers is when the reader simply enjoys the story for what it is.
I'd far rather somebody say they like it than offer suggestions as to how to 'make it better'. I find it kinda patronising and try not to do it myself unless it's to genuinely offer a solution in regard to a plot hole or other.
Oh for ****'s sake. There goes my quarterly release on Celtex then, can't we just reign in the general dickheadery and not go full blown critical on other folk's reviews?? At least they read the thing!!
And sorry for my part re the religious comment thing. But I was glad to see that calmed down quickly, a point was made and everyone just respected the thread and carried on.
If it is the last for a while, thanks for the time and the space as per usual, Don.
I just read the Touche thread and yeah, I can see that Jeff has gone a little off the rails in there. In my opinion, the best feedback we can have as writers is when the reader simply enjoys the story for what it is.
I'd far rather somebody say they like it than offer suggestions as to how to 'make it better'. I find it kinda patronising and try not to do it myself unless it's to genuinely offer a solution in regard to a plot hole or other.
Interesting.
I prefer comments about how to make it better, personally.
I prefer comments about how to make it better, personally.
I like hearing what people don't like, or what they believe doesn't work but that's different than being told what to write. Unless the credentials are there, or I'm being paid to write a certain way, most advice boils down to how another writer would themselves tackle the same issue... and if that worked for them in their own work then they'd have the credentials to back it.
Plenty of scripts have been heavily criticised on this site and then gone into production. Unless the writer has a vested interest in the script, their recommendations should be taken with a pinch of salt as they are worthless.
I like hearing what people don't like, or what they believe doesn't work but that's different than being told what to write. Unless the credentials are there, or I'm being paid to write a certain way, most advice boils down to how another writer would themselves tackle the same issue... and if that worked for them in their own work then they'd have the credentials to back it.
Plenty of scripts have been heavily criticised on this site and then gone into production. Unless the writer has a vested interest in the script, their recommendations should be taken with a pinch of salt as they are worthless.
Agreed, and i think that I follow this method of critiquing pretty well. I mean, unless someone is specifically asking for other ways to do something, I won't make suggestions. I mainly comment on dialogue realism and formatting over anything else, and whether I like the thing or not.
Enjoying a morning cup of coffee - thought I would weigh in before getting to more mundane tasks.
To me, there is an unspoken deal in the OWC. No, it's not a contest. But it is specifically designed to incentive writers to write a script, within given constraints, for an interactive experience. That being you will have a chance to receive reaction to your script and in return react to scripts written by others. If it is just about writing a short - well, you can do that anytime.
It does irk me when writers don't step up to the plate in this regard. I can't help that think an easy bar is for writers who enter to read and comment on at least half of the scripts. Reading and commenting on 15 scripts should take somewhere between 3 to 5 hours. That doesn't seem like a huge commitment to me - especially for a writer (part of writing is reading).
In terms of the comments - that obviously varies on reviewers and we seem to have a good mix of dialogue people, format people, structure people, all of the above people, etc. To me the comments made are generally fine. If someone finds a typo or a format issue I want to hear. IF all they have to say is that they loved it or hated it - okay too.
That's just my take. Now unfortunately I have some editing to do - ugh - least favorite part of writing.
From my experience after having been here for twelve years.
First off, it's nearly impossible for the mods to read every single post during an OWC. Especially in the frenzy following when the scripts are first posted. It's easy to miss an insulting or "bad" comment. We try to keep up, but we do have real jobs too. This gig here is for the love of the site.
In the early days, the OWCs were definitely more fun and more friendly. There were fewer entries and because of that, each script got better longer reviews. Over time, everything changes. Even the OWCs. It's now a far more serious events. The quality of scripts have gone up a lot in general, but a lot of the comments have become shorter and much less helpful. Some comments seem more like the reviewer just want it to be known s/he read the script. Not much more.
The tone of the reviews have also become more harsh over the years. Yes, we all need to have thick skin as writers so we can deal with rejection of our work. However, as a mod, I know we get lots of complaints from writers too about some of the critique they receive or see someone else receive. Although, I'm sure Don gets the brunt of it.
I've also heard in the last two years or so, that people don't want to enter because they simply can't commit to reading them all. I don't blame them. There have been some OWCs where there were over 40 entries. That's a big commitment. It has always been seen as bad etiquette to not read any. When those writers were revealed at the end, most people would just go back and delete their comments on that writer's script. That's how we dealt with those people back then. Honor system. If you have the time, by all means, read them all, if you don't, read as many as you can. No one should be shunned for not reading all.
In short, some things have changed for the better, but other things not so much...