I’ve also had positive reviews that pointed out negative things that were missed by negative reviewers. I’m just pointing out that positive comments aren’t necessarily less honest than blistering ones.

When I say something positive, it’s because I sincerely mean it. When I say something negative, I mean it. I don’t make positive comments just to be nice. Yes, I look for positive things about a script but to me that’s all part of doing a thorough review.

I can tell you this; if someone thinks my review is dishonest, I’ll be more than happy to remove it and stop reviewing their work. I’ve got far too much to do to mess with people who think my reviews are dishonest. I’ve got better things to do than to pump up people about their scripts.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I can tell you this; if someone thinks my review is dishonest, I’ll be more than happy to remove it and stop reviewing their work. I’ve got far too much to do to mess with people who think my reviews are dishonest. I’ve got better things to do than to pump up people about their scripts. And I’m goddamn sick of the accusation.

For what it's worth Brea, I think you along with Bert and George are the most insightful reviewers I've seen.

I always give my honest opinion on scripts that I read. I think it's pretty pointless not to. I just name what I like and don't like as I read. I never intentionally try to be mean or kiss anyones @$$. Nobody benefits in a half @$$ed review. I like to think that people can take something from my reviews and know that they're genuine.

I did not say anything about them not being honest. I simply said this read or you are the bad guy attitute has adopted the cute review which is an honest way of kissing ass.

The biggest cute reviewer was my Halloween costume.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley I'm glad that Phil is here and Balt stuck around as long as he did because at least for the most part they have been honest without the excess butter.

I’ve lost count of how many posts I’ve seen about how honest Balt’s and Phil’s reviews are. And I don’t disagree with that assessment. But, like the above quote, it’s always made clear that they are the exception. And I don’t think that’s true. My reviews are every bit as honest as Balt’s or Phil’s. I’ll leave whether or not I’m a good reviewer to those that receive my reviews but I’m every bit as honest and I don’t think Balt’s or Phil’s reviews are any better than mine or a lot of other people’s.

If I read something I like, I don’t find it all that unusual that the writer might like something I wrote as well. Nothing strange about that. What’s the point in reading scripts from someone I’ll never have correspondence with when I can read something from a writer that has read something of mine? We can help each other out. Screw the people who don’t participate. They’re not going to do anything for me. I care about being a good writer and I don’t give a damn about politics. If someone kissed my ass for a read, they didn’t do either of us a favor.

But I’m smart enough to know when someone’s pumping me up. And I’m smart enough to know when a negative review is unfairly critical. I also have other reviews to help me make that determination. I also have reviewers I trust. That’s part of networking and developing a support system for your improvement.

You’re absolutely right that there are those who leave flimsy reviews. Quite honestly, those people often seem a little off in the head anyway. But I also believe the majority of people who regularly participate leave honest, constructive reviews. They may not be as brash as Balt’s but I don’t doubt their sincerity for a second.

If I open up a script and find it’s just too poor to read and I can plainly tell the author isn’t serious about writing, I close the file and leave that author to languish. There’s nothing I can gain by reading silly tripe so I don’t bother. I’ve got about ten authors on a “Do Not Read” list and I don’t mess with anything they write. I don’t care who they are and what they do. Once they go on the list, it takes an Act of Congress to get off. I don’t have the time or inclination to bother.

The difference is that Balt sometimes bothered reviewing the work of writers who weren’t serious. And a lot of times, he said stuff that we would all like to say because that particular “author” really probably needed some big, aggressive guy like Balt to get in his face. It’s always nice to see some jerk get what they deserve but I’m not going to bother with those people.

I think the point that is getting lost here is that writing is subjective. For everone who loves your script there's someone who's going to say it sucks goat balls. Therefore reviews of scripts also have to be taken subjectively.

Obviously grammar, puncuation and spelling errors are right or wrong... however... when people make suggestions about character actions and story points... this is something the writer himself must be left with a certain amout of discression.

i take reviews with a grain of salt. i read what the reviewer has to say.... digest it...and if he's made a suggestion about a plot point or a character action i will analyze it... think about it... then make my own decision whether to change it or leave it the same..

obviously there are going to be people on this board who are just here to blow smoke up your ass just so they can get a read. that's fine. these people will slowly build up reputations and they will be ignored... obviously there may be times when your reviews fall on def ears and you are forced to lose an hour and a half of your life reading their script... but hey... that's the way this little world works.... it comes with the territory. if nothing else...maybe you read something that;ll inspire you down the road.

just be glad we have this little place here to bounce our stuff around on and get feedback...whether its bullshit or not.... some of you have been around long enough to know eachother.... and reguardless of a newbie's true intention behind a review... you still have a solid core of a group (george, wes, bert, shelton, ect ect) to fallback on.... most of you all read eachothers work anyway....

but newbie's deserve the benefit of the doubt.  

I remember the quote about Phil and Balt being heralded as being of a minority of honest reviewers, but it was nothing I took offense at. There are quite a few people who frequent these boards that can give a killer review (Abe From LA, anyone?). Phil and Balt did it, but they are by no means exceptions. Most people who bother to put something on a thread put something worth reading. It's actually a minority of reviewers who do a crappy review. But then, it is a minority of the total board membership (1,315 as of right now) that actually reads and reviews scripts as well.

I've seen my share of crappy reviews, but most of them are worth reading even if they are very simple.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson And I’m goddamn sick of the accusation.

Hey, Brea -- just because Wesley didn't include you on his short list (of two people), I don't think he was accusing you of kissing any butts -- as if you would.

He didn't list me, either -- but I didn't take offense.  I am pretty sure he wasn't including me (or you) in his generalized "kiss ass" reviewer list.  Wes just isn't a big name dropper, that's all.

Since Sry dropped my name, let me drop his:

Quoted from Sryknows, reviewing The Farm For the most part, I didn't think it was all that great...

I actually found that refreshing (to a point, of course).  That takes some courage to go onto that gorilla of a thread and say something like that.  I liked it, and from that point forward, I know that was a review I could take seriously.

I think people know whose opinions to take seriously and whose opinions are little more than stroking "now go read mine" nonsense.

Wesley's point was simply that there are plenty of the latter out there -- and he's right -- but I don't think he meant to discount the sizable population of members that give good, thoughtful advice -- they are out there, too.

I hope I am not putting words into your mouth, Wes -- but you shouldn't include yourself on Wesley's "naughty list" unless you actually deserve it.

I think we all know who he is and who he isn't talking about.

  

I would like to believe the people who I think highly of know who they are. And even others like you Breanne... I read posts and reviews posted on this site for things that have nothing to do with me because how else does Don know when things go bad? A lot of time spent going through thread after thread.

I think I said it wrong though. People hold back in reviews. So, they may be honest but to a certain point they hold back because they like you or don't want to anger anyone.

A review I left for an episode of a series had a fan of the series lash out at me... the subsequent posts were deleted by someone because they weren't very nice but it does tell me that being honest is not what people want.

Hopefully I expressed why I felt the way I did clearly enough for ya Bert.

And I should also make the point that it's not a bad thing to ask WHY if something seems a little vague in a review. I am always willing to explain my opinion or ask others exactly what they mean when I don't quite get something they've said.

And I always go into a review or a read of a script without expecting to get a read in return. There's a lot of things I've read and reviewed that didn't get me a review in return, but I don't get bitter about it. I read what I want to read and give my honest opinion on what I think. I think anyone who goes into the review expecting to get read back or just does it for the read in the first place are the reviews that are really screwed up by bias.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley …I think I said it wrong though. People hold back in reviews. So, they may be honest but to a certain point they hold back because they like you or don't want to anger anyone.

If I’m mistaken about your meaning then I apologize. I thought you were saying that certain people were honest without buttering writers up, which in my mind meant that the rest were unnecessarily buttering writers up. In my mind, being positive for any reason other than that it’s a valid point is less than honest.

And I certainly believe there is a blatant insincerity in tacking a “Now go read mine” onto the end of a review.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley I read posts and reviews posted on this site for things that have nothing to do with me…A lot of time spent going through thread after thread.

Good point. I’m sure you do read a lot of posts that I wouldn’t bother with. And I’m sure your insight is unique as a result.



Aren’t you all glad I’ve been around lately to liven things up? (The sounds of crickets chirping.)

Sometimes when I'm on the site, i will just review a script for the entertainment that it provides, not really looking for things that are wrong or could be improved.  When I do this, i still post a review, but it is less thorough than a review I might give someone through a script review exchange, which I read more formally, because it is basically a formal transaction.  

I am assuming that when I read someones script for entertainment, they would still appreciate anything I might have picked up on when reading, so I post my thoughts.

I've not visited SimplyScripts for a while but when I previously read any screenplays posted here I've striven to provide an honest, unbiased and impartial review. Equally I have ensured any criticism offered was related to the craft of story-telling and screenwriting in particular so that the screenwriter would gain something from the experience.

Its a bold step to submit a piece of work for critical scrutiny and its a steep learning curve for both the reviewer and the writer in giving and receiving constructive criticism.

As long as the reviewer gives understandable explanations as to what works and what doesn't in relation to the written work then this would be acceptable.

A writer also is required to learn to accept constructive criticism as a dynamic which will assist in the actual writing process.

Being a writer, especially a screenwriter, means your work will be scrutinized at every turn, when submitted to agents, production companies, script readers, script competitions and many more situations. The sooner you as a writer can assimilate critical feedback as an aid to your writing the better your work will be for it.

Review vs Proofreading

When reviewing a script, in my opinion, the review should touch on the following matters:

A) Story
B) Character(s)
C) Dialog
D) The writing (structure, pace, descriptions - not spelling and grammar)
E) Format

I have had reviews given on my work and I have seen other reviews that basically amount to no more the mere proof readings. If someone reviews my work - whether I asked for the review or not - I would like the reviewer not to spend 2/3 of the review citing words that are misspelled. The basis of a review should be to give your honest opinion on the matters A to E as stated above (at least that what I try to do when a give a review - as do most other posters here), that's the only way you will help the writer to improve the script and maybe even his or her writing skills. If you only pick up on every time I wrote your instead of you're then you are not really helping much.



Cheers
Rob

Spelling and grammar are important later on.  When your first draft of a script is up, story, characterization and formatting are more important.  After you've done two or three drafts and are looking to do something with it, then spelling and grammar count.

This doesn't mean that one's reviews should consist of pointing out such problems.


Phil

I think reviewing scripts goes through a certain process of maturity. You begin by pointing out the easy stuff: format and spelling/grammar. Most of my early reviews consisted of page number: error format, but as I continued, I decided that doing such a thing was so tedious, I was losing sight of the point of reading and reviewing, and that is giving the author an honest insight into the script. page/error gave way to page/story or continuity issue, and lately, I've almost dumped page numbers altogether for favor of an almost movie-ish review covering the screenplay as a whole, only mentioning pages if there is a grievous error, or doing so would enhance the clarity of what I'm reviewing. I also throw in page numbers if I'm doing an indepth review where I dig scene by scene through the script, but those reviews are time comsuming and rare for me. I rarely, if ever, touch on format, and if I do, it's a general comment somewhere at the beginning noting that I observed (unless it is downright distracting or the writer nitpicked every single time I bent the rules in the my own scripts ).

What you should consider in any review is whether you (if you wrote it) would appreciate the comments you left. Are they something useful to improve the script, or just vindictive or token to get a read. Token comments are easy to see through, and if you're being mean...well, people know.

Honesty is what everyone needs more of, and seriously, if you can't be honest about someone's writing in an online forum (where you'll almost never see anyone face to face) about writing, then you need some help.