One thing I have wondered about is whether people take different spellings into consideration when reviewing scripts? There are many words in British English that are spelled differently in US English but that does not make them incorrect though. I know that Mark pulled me up on saying 'Franticly' instead of 'Frantically' recently and while at first I agreed with him I did wonder why celtx spellcheck never picked it up and after a search it seems it is an accepted spelling of the word.

My biggest problem at the moment is that I have made a conscious effort to use US Spelling in my scripts, one of the reasons is that I am writing for a US market I guess but another reason is that celtx only seems to have a US english dictionary. But this is a hard thing to do because naturally I think in British English and so my scripts are ending up being spelled in a strange mix of both. So whereas I would like to have any typo's mentioned to me (and Mark does do a great job of that for me) I would hope that until this becomes second nature to me that people are able to review scripts based on story and not let the typo's distract from it so much.

Hey Murph,

Just read through your reply and noticed a couple things.

Quoted from Murphy ...while at first I agreed with him I did wonder why celtx spellcheck never...

There should be a comma between him and I.  And also, Celtx really should be capitalized because it is a proper noun.  And Celtx is also possessive of spellcheck, so there should be an apostrophe.  So it should read   ...while at first I agreed with him, I did wonder why Celtx' spellcheck never...

Quoted from Murphy I have made a conscious effort to use US Spelling in my scripts, one of the reasons is that I am writing for a US market I guess but another reason is that celtx only seems...

There should be a period after 'in my scripts'.  And don't forget about the proper noun.  Should read '...US spelling in my scripts.  One of the reasons is that I am writing for a US market I guess, but another reason is that Celtx only seems...'

All right, on a serious note, I do have to apologize for 'franticly'.  I just had never seen it used that way and, to this sixth grade spelling champ in the 1991 class at St. Dominic Elementary School, it just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.  So I give you permission to punch me if we ever meet in real life.

Hey, give me credit, though.  At least I had the sense enough to realize that 'arse' wasn't a typo.  Lol, the very first time I saw it used, I actually thought it was.  Now I use the word every chance I get.

And, of course I do still stay focused on your stories.  Your typo's I've come across aren't very distracting, but I  feel the less typo's, the more professionalism it brings to a writer's work when they want to send it to a production company or even just an agent.

Of course, there is the fact that a lot of people are from different countries.  Knowing that, I usually only mention spelling and grammar mistakes in the action or description blocks or sluglines.  The dialogue, if I'm not too sure about, I usually leave alone.

Cheers Mark! Hey don't get me wrong, I mean it I appreciate it when i get feedback on my grammar. It has been 20 years since I left school and although am in a professional occupation I rarely have to worry too much about grammar and spelling. So having only started writing within the last 3 months and I know I really need to focus on remembering some of my English lessons. It is amazing what you forget in 20 years!

So yes I think criticism of grammar should be part and parcel of script reviewing as there are some of us who as well as trying to learn how to write good screenplays are also trying to remember how to write! so the feedback from others is a good lesson.

Correcting typos and grammar are important, as is formatting but I usually tend to focus on - is the Story any good?  We've all read scripts that are 100% correct in their format and have zero typos, but the story is full of bad stilted dialogue and incoherent plotlines. The STORY is the thing. Without that you're nowhere. Typos and formatting are technical issues that can be easliy addressed, for the most part. But if you can't tell a story, or you tell a bad story, techincal skills don't help. So I tend to go easy on typo errors and focus on the tale being told; did it grab me, did I laugh, feel the proper emotions, etc.

One thing I've noticed also are reviews that just slam all the bad points in a script, which can be a huge discouragement to a writer. Whenever I have to give feedback to an employee, either a written review for their yearly raise, or just some off the cuff feedback, usually it's best to sandwich negative comments between the positive ones at all possible. Then again that's just a personal preference, I don't want someone to walk away without something positive.

Or how about reviews that say " I didn't like this script because I don't like this type of story". Why in the world would you say that? If you don't like a romance, don't read one. If you don't like action, read a drama. If you don't care for the emotion the writer is aiming for, who cares ? As a reviewer you're supposed to review the script you read. Don't put your personal prejudices into it.

Quoted from mikep One thing I've noticed also are reviews that just slam all the bad points in a script, which can be a huge discouragement to a writer. Whenever I have to give feedback to an employee, either a written review for their yearly raise, or just some off the cuff feedback, usually it's best to sandwich negative comments between the positive ones at all possible. Then again that's just a personal preference, I don't want someone to walk away without something positive.

The problem is, this type of approach may make your review disengenuous and hurt more than help. Because what if there are no positives? What if the script just flat out sucks and has no redeeming traits? You shouldn't invent something positive ("At least you got your name right!") just for the sake of niceness, if you genuinely don't think there's anything positive about it.

Discouragement is part of the process. Some people will hate your script, and a "good job on finishing a script!" may at best feel condescending, and at worst give the writer a false idea of how good or bad his script really is. It's something you have to learn to deal with, and if user reviews on a public website breaks your spirit, then what hope do you in the actual business?

Be polite and civil, break the news gently, if want, but don't be insincere just to spare the writer's feelings. At least that's how I feel.

That's true If you find a script with NOTHING to recommend, then all you can do is be brutally honest. In that case you might not even want them to encourage them to keep writing

Quoted from mikep Correcting typos and grammar are important, as is formatting but I usually tend to focus on - is the Story any good?  We've all read scripts that are 100% correct in their format and have zero typos, but the story is full of bad stilted dialogue and incoherent plotlines. The STORY is the thing. Without that you're nowhere. Typos and formatting are technical issues that can be easliy addressed, for the most part. But if you can't tell a story, or you tell a bad story, techincal skills don't help. So I tend to go easy on typo errors and focus on the tale being told; did it grab me, did I laugh, feel the proper emotions, etc.

A script is supposed to pull us into the story.  We're supposed to forget who we are as we are welcomed into this new world that the writer has created for us.  However, when there are numerous spelling and/or grammatical errors, then we are thrown out of the story and land on our collective asses.

This is not to say that a script should be error free with spelling and grammar; this is probably impossible.  But when there are three or four mistakes per page, it's hard not to be distracted.  I've seen scripts where the author has butchered the English language.  One script, I painfully recall, was truly written by a lazy idiot who used every abbreviation he could find.  The following line should never appear in a script:

"I wanted to see U 2, Mary."

If you are that lazy, go play with your Gameboy and leave the writing to the writers.



Phil

Holy hell, yeah if someone's spelling is no better than the title of a Prince song ( I Would die 4 u) then yes that person has basic issues to work out before they try to write a script.

I never meant grammar and typos aren't important and if the script is rife with them yep It's a problem.

I will toss out something that has been a bit of an issue lately, since this thread has been bumped again.

When you are looking to review a script, take a few moments to peruse the thread --

Is the last post on the thread from 2004?

Has the author ever made an appearance on the thread to respond to comments? Ever?

Unless you are really interested in the script, you should consider taking a pass on that one and move on to something by an active member -- or at least, somebody who pops up once in a while.

Otherwise, you are kind of wasting your time with the feedback.  This applies to shorts as well as features.

Quoted from dogglebe One script, I painfully recall, was truly written by a lazy idiot...  "I wanted to see U 2, Mary."

I told you I was talking about the band, Phil.  *ssh*l*.

:-)

Just out of curiosity, I've heard something about a script that nobody dare mention by name on a thread, but I can't remember where.  I was kind of curious if somebody might PM me and let me know what it is so I can check it out and see what the hype is all about.  I won't reply or comment on its thread bashing it.   I'm just curious.

Quoted from bert Unless you are really interested in the script, you should consider taking a pass on that one and move on to something by an active member -- or at least, somebody who pops up once in a while.

I do usually try to do this, but I also pay a lot of attention to the log line.  If the log line, or sometimes even just the title interests me, then I will take the time to check it out.  I love reading and to me, nothing beats a great story, so I won't be prejudiced in that way to what I read.  (Although, I have to admit, luckily, most of the stuff that does interest me is usually written by an active member on the boards.)

It is very good advice to peruse the comments first, too.  If I've read something and really enjoyed it, but no one else has read it and the author isn't around, I will post something in hopes to maybe hear a response from him, but if I wasn't all that into it, I'll just move on to something else.  There are probably about a good thirty shorts, and a few features I've read, but ignored sharing my thoughts about it.  I don't mind the wasted time.  I think it's worth the time to at least check it out.  I'm always on the look out for something lifechanging.

- Mark


[bert's edit:  Sent him a PM]

Quoted from rc1107 Just out of curiosity, I've heard something about a script that nobody dare mention by name on a thread, but I can't remember where.  I was kind of curious if somebody might PM me and let me know what it is so I can check it out and see what the hype is all about.  I won't reply or comment on its thread bashing it.   I'm just curious.

Using my best Dumbledore impersonation:

"The Ministry of Scripts does not want any of you know of this script.  They feel you would be safer if none of you knew of its existence.  But I say they are wrong!  You all must be aware of the danger.  The script whose name cannot be mentioned can be found here."


Phil

Ha ha ha! Pretty much all of my first reviews were just like this. You have to admit that it is a little scary the first few times you review. It feels like giving Michael Jordan shooting tips. I am glad that everyone has patience with the new guys around here, though.

"It's gonna take time, a whole lotta precious time. It's gonna take patience and time."

James

At what point does a writer need to grasp their own work sans the interjections, critiques -- negative or positive -- pats on the back etc,... and know within themself that their work is up to snuff or that it won't pass muster with a seventh-grader? Most of the writers on simplyscripts have been churning out works for years now and they still appear to be hopelessly unaware of what makes a screenplay strong and, conversely, what renders one unworthy of light. How can this be? Are you giving proper notice to the faults and mistakes your reviewers point out, or are you just trapped in a rut from which you may never escape without professional help from people who have been produced, sold or worked intimately within the film business?

And if the entire purpose of this site is to provide feedback of the truest sort to all writers who sign up, then what is up with this hierarchical arrogance that sees writers looking but not touching so to speak? If you're altruistic then you'll reveiw as many screenplays as possible, not just those of writers with whom you have some measure of familiarity. I understand that the Hollywood is a huge dream for many of the writers here, but if you can't get over the hump why not help the next person achieve their goal?

Now here's a little brutality for some. I've read hundreds of the postings on simplyscripts, and I will read many more. That said many many of the works on this site are so terrible that from the opening I was repulsed, by grammar, spelling, character names, unrealistic dialogue, weak characters, poor structure and that was within the first third of the first page. So what was there to lead me on into the depths of the given screenplay? For anyone out there who mistakenly believes that things the little things don't count I suggest you submit a screenplay chock full of misspellings and grammatical errors and wait for the response...

Quoted from courhaw And if the entire purpose of this site is to provide feedback...

What an odd post.  Is it a question?  Is it a rant?

First point:  The purpose of the site is to provide and receive feedback.  It is like Christmas -- are you going to continue to give presents to people who never give presents to you -- or even to anybody at all?  I don't.

Quoted from courhaw ...you'll reveiw as many screenplays as possible, not just those of writers with whom you have some measure of familiarity.

And why would somebody do that?  Well, because...

Quoted from courhaw ...many many of the works on this site are so terrible that from the opening I was repulsed

I primarily read scripts from active members, and when I read authors I know and like, I seldom encounter repulsive scripts. (Although nobody is immune from the occassional stinker)  And with all the scripts here, reading the scripts of active members could be a full-time job in and of itself.

Second point:  I also know those authors are HERE, and welcome the feedback, and often return the favor as their time permits.

I stopped commenting on scripts by "mystery authors" some time ago.  That is a choice, and I find it unusual that anyone would ask someone to defend such a logical decision.

Altruism?  Sometimes, sure.  But thumping your chest and demanding that should be the norm doesn't make any sense to me.

I typically read what I'm asked to just because I know it'll be worth my time to do so. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'll encounter the best cript on the boards, but at the same time, I, personally, am not reading to read a good script, I'm reading to offer whatever advice I can to the author.

Now, I can't claim to be the best writer around, but I've had my fair share of kudos. Is Hollywood still a dream? Yeah. Can't get any attention. Probably have to play the festival circuit after all if I'm going to get anywhere. My problem hasn't been anything related to the screenplay itself; it's been getting anyone to read it. Who cares how good it is if no one will give you the time of day to look at it? Sorry, not going to get on that topic again.

Am I qualified to read and critique a movie script? Hell yeah! Anyone is. Why? Because we all watch movies. I'd be willing to wager I've seen a couple more than a lot of people around here, and probably a larger variety so I've seen both good and bad movies, I have picked up what makes the good ones good, what makes the bad ones bad, how they're constructed, what works, and what doesn't. This applies to everything from the blockbusters like Lord of the Rings to abstract flicks like Mulholland Drive (which I appreciate, but cannot admit to fully understanding) to character rich dramas like The Godfather to absolute stinkers like Eegah.

I've read enough and written enough to know how movies work and how to write them so they don't stink, so like I said, I don't read anymore to learn, but I read to teach the best I can and hopefully to be entertained. I have no biases at all, so anything and anyone goes for me. No hierarchal arrogance here.