This is just something I thought I'd bring up.  I've noticed a number of the newer members are all critiquing scripts the same way and (IMHO) you're making the same mistakes.

When you critique a script, don't concentrate on typos or misspellings.  These things are low priority.  If a script is rewritten, some of these typos will be corrected and new ones will be made (believe me, here).

Instead, tell the writer what is right and wrong with the characters.  Tell us which characters need more developement.  Which characters sound alike when they talk?  Which ones act alike when they shouldn't?

Where does the story slow down?  What scenes are not needed?  What scenes need further development?

While everyone needs to know what is wrong with their scripts, pointing out typos shows that you're not looking at the whole picture.  Tell us what's wrong with the scripts and not with the words.


Phil

And you shouldn't gush.  It's unseemly.

Especially when you've only read 2-3 scripts -- then turn around and tell the author that they've written the best script on the site.

People CAN tell when you churn out a glowing review in hopes of sniffing out a return read on your own work.

Yeah -- it shows.  It really does.

And then they won't want to exchange with you because they can't value your opinion or your judgement.

If you get a good review from Phil -- or got one from Balt (R.I.P.) -- that means something.  And then there are some members that I don't even want them to comment on my scripts.

If you are a good, fair, and honest reviewer, you will always get plenty of reads on your work.  Honesty is always the best policy -- even here.

Oh, one more thing...

A lot of us can tell when you rehash other people's critiques so you can get your script read.  It's painfully obvious.


Phil

Quoted Text or got one from Balt (R.I.P.)

Am I missing something here? Or are you saying that you're lucky if you get a good review from Balt? Sorry, I'm curious.


Anyways, I'm always afraid I'm not giving the author a lot of help in my review either because there really wasn't really wrong with the script or that the posters above me had already stated the obvious, and I didn't want to repeat them. So sometimes my reviews are really short, and sometimes they are long, but I try to be as helpful as possible.

Sean

Quoted from Zombie Sean Am I missing something here? Or are you saying that you're lucky if you get a good review from Balt? Sorry, I'm curious. Anyways, I'm always afraid I'm not giving the author a lot of help in my review either because there really wasn't really wrong with the script or that the posters above me had already stated the obvious, and I didn't want to repeat them. So sometimes my reviews are really short, and sometimes they are long, but I try to be as helpful as possible. Sean

i'm on the same page. im hardly someone to critique other peoples work when im barely on par with the other writers on this site. that said i try my best. i try to avoid reading previous critiques so it doesnt influence my own judgments

Quoted from SwapJack i'm on the same page. im hardly someone to critique other peoples work when im barely on par with the other writers on this site. that said i try my best. i try to avoid reading previous critiques so it doesnt influence my own judgments

On the contrary!

The 'new guys' may bring in a fresh outlook to scripts that we old-timers may have overlooked.

And don't read what other people feel until after you posted your review.  It's liable to taint your opinion.  If you think a script is bad, and ten people say it's great, I'd want to know why you think it's bad.


Phil

I remember reading Balt's reviews and how he just tore apart everything he read. Then one day, I noticed Balt at the top of a review for one of my scripts. I was scared....very scared. I just knew he'd shred it to pieces, so I read it and...he liked it. I was overcome.

I also remember Phil being complimentary on another one of my scripts, and I also felt very complimented. Phil's no where near as harsh as Balt was, but to have a positive review from him was really something.

I have the way I used to review stuff, and the way I do now. I used to concentrate on format and typos and such, but when it became too big a pain in the butt to keep track of all of it, I started reading the whole script without taking notes (unless it was glaring) and just commenting on it as a whole. Format is easy and can be fixed in about an hour for a badly formatted script. Typos are just a matter of either using a spell check or re-reading. Plot and character are harder to rehash.

As for being newer, by all means give your opinion. Feedback is love, dude. If you didn't get something, say you didn't get it. If you hated it, say why. The whole key to negative feedback is supporting it with the "why's". If you don't say why something sucks, I just figure you're jealous it was so good.

Quoted from George Willson Feedback is love, dude. If you didn't get something, say you didn't get it. If you hated it, say why. The whole key to negative feedback is supporting it with the "why's". If you don't say why something sucks, I just figure you're jealous it was so good.

I totally agree with George. I've been myself shot to death by criticisms because of the form of my script or of the typos. Two of my scripts have been derelicted after only one criticism. Those criticisms were not based upon the story but only because of the form.

Another critic lambasted one of my script (typos, grammar, etc...) and adored another one. The only thing he didn't realized it was from the same author.

About me, I don't give a d*mn about typos or form problems. Maybe as a Frenchman I can judge the script because of them, only story and dialogs matter.  If you feel feelings behind the lines you read, if it does touch you inside, never mind the form. The essence is all.

Michel

"About me, I don't give a d*mn about typos or form problems. Maybe as a Frenchman I can judge the script because of them, only story and dialogs matter.  If you feel feelings behind the lines you read, if it does touch you inside, never mind the form. The essence is all."

all is said here!

it's true, too many people always complain about the typos,
who gives a damn, it's a cheap comment, the story, characters it's all it matters, typos are always corrected, since a lot of time we do rewrites like phil says!

Quoted from Zombie Sean Am I missing something here? Or are you saying that you're lucky if you get a good review from Balt? Sorry, I'm curious.

I hope you did not think that I meant to imply Balt was dead.  He just isn't around here anymore, and I was being silly.  That's all.

What I meant was that he was honest -- brutally in many cases -- so when he said he liked something you knew he really liked it and wasn't just blowing sunshine.

You weren't "lucky" to get a good review.  You got a "good" review or a "porks chickens in the butt" review based upon the quality of your story.

[Note to newer members:  Yes, his review of your work might have actually included the phrase "porks chickens in the butt."  I am not making that up.]

I'm one of the newer members on this site. I've read many scripts but rarely commented on them because I honestly never felt I qualify to do so, especially when it comes to the technical part of it, of which I do lack some experience there. Recently one of the moderators looked over one of my files and pointed out few technical problems, of which I'm thankful for, problems with certain "distractions and inserts" I've always used, thinking it would make my story a better read, but obviously it didn't. So I'm going to try and concentrate on plot and character developments from now on while reading scripts, and leave the technical part for those who can handle it.

Ayham

Quoted from Ayham I'm one of the newer members on this site. I've read many scripts but rarely commented on them because I honestly never felt I qualify to do so...

Can't say I'm not guilty of that myself but...

I think everyone's qualified to read and comment on a script. If you watch movies at the theatre or in dvd and then discuss with your friends which ones you liked and which ones you didn't, then you can read a script and tell the author which bits you liked and which you didn't, and why.

Do know that your feedback is good as any. And welcome to the site, by the way.

Thanks Mr. Z.

Quoted Text I hope you did not think that I meant to imply Balt was dead.  He just isn't around here anymore, and I was being silly.  That's all.

Oh good! Haha yeah that's what I meant (the dead part) and I was like "What!?" but yeah I was wondering where Balt had gone. Is he ever going to come back?

Sean

Quoted from Zombie Sean Oh good! Haha yeah that's what I meant (the dead part) and I was like "What!?" but yeah I was wondering where Balt had gone. Is he ever going to come back?

I doubt it. Balt felt like he was getting censored because he couldn't talk about blowing goat nuts and porking chickens. I know a lot of his more vulgar posts were deleted for their graphic content, and as I understand it, he got tired of it. There was nothing wrong with what he said most of the time, but how he said it was usually over the top.

I believe he left voluntarily, and it's doubtful he'll return.

Quoted from dogglebe This is just something I thought I'd bring up.  I've noticed a number of the newer members are all critiquing scripts the same way and (IMHO) you're making the same mistakes. When you critique a script, don't concentrate on typos or misspellings.  These things are low priority.  If a script is rewritten, some of these typos will be corrected and new ones will be made (believe me, here). Instead, tell the writer what is right and wrong with the characters.  Tell us which characters need more developement.  Which characters sound alike when they talk?  Which ones act alike when they shouldn't? Where does the story slow down?  What scenes are not needed?  What scenes need further development? While everyone needs to know what is wrong with their scripts, pointing out typos shows that you're not looking at the whole picture.  Tell us what's wrong with the scripts and not with the words. Phil

I'm new, so maybe this applies to me. I don't think I've commented much on typos. I do, though, comment on the way words are used. If, for example, a sentence is replete with redundancies or superfluous words, I bring it to the author's attention. I do this because I think it's important.

I also, though, think it's important to comment on structure and characterization, among other things. But, having said that, if a script is unreadable, due to poor writing, then I'll probably stop reading before being able to examine said elements.

Seth

I just put down ANYTHING I find wrong with the script. Whatever I think is worth mentioning, I give the writer a heads up. This includes things I didn't like and things I did like, and technical problems along with problems with the story itself.

What's wrong with going both ways?   ...Wait, that sounded bad.

Uh-oh. I'm a  newbie. I post  critique. I post glowing reviews. I hope I'm not the one everyone is talking about.  

I try to focus on the positive things on a script because I can't bring myself to be a bastard. If there is anything negative I usually just ignore it and focus on the good aspects of the script. It's a bloody hard slog to write a script. (it takes me a year to do one) so i just can't bring myself to tear into a script if it is weak.

The few times I have been negative the response from the writer is sometimes an arrogant denial that there is a negative in the first place.

If I thought a script was really crap. I would send the writer a bad review via private message. I refuse to rip apart a script in public. I don't like it and the next person who reads it might love it. That's not gonna happen if you crap all over a writer's script.

Besides many of the scripts here are really good. very good. I've read a few where I enjoyed them 100%. So i tell the writer that.  

No specific persons are being implicated by these very general comments -- and as best I can recall, certainly not those on this thread pondering the possibility that the subject at hand somehow pertains to them.

By no means should you shy away from negative comments -- as long as you can back them up -- as these are the most helpful comments an author can receive.

"I loved it" might be a nice ego stroke -- and of course you should tell the author if you did -- but it offers absolutely nothing by way of improvement -- and there isn't a script in existence that cannot be improved upon.

And if the author doesn't like criticism -- well, screw them -- they shouldn't be posting their work for feedback anyway.

Absurdly negative and offensive reviews are deleted, so there are no examples to point out as far as I know.

But here is an example of an absurdly positive review for the curious.

[Edit:  And in the 2nd post beneath it, Brea calls them on it in a most delightful fashion haha.]

In any case, critiquing scripts is a skill. One that I, being new, am still learning. So dogglebe's comments are well taken.

Seth

I touched on this on another thread, and a lot of people say they don't know what to say after they've read a script. Well, this is a screenwriting site, and we're all here to help each other get better. One way to do this is writing a review of a script.

You'll see a hundred different ways to do this, but here's a basic method. You start with the good stuff and move on to the bad stuff.

The good stuff is something you liked. You opened the script for a reason. You kept reading it for a reason. There had to be something you liked about it. Every script has some kind of redeeming quality. Even Scary Movie 2 and Manos: The Hands of Fate...as hard as it may be to find sometimes. By giving the author a little bit of warm fuzziness to begin with, it makes the bad stuff easier to swallow since otherwise it feels like you hated everything. I've read some stinky stuff before, and I've always made a point to say something good. It helps.

The second half is the bad stuff. Everything you think has a problem needs to have a "why" attached to it. If you thought something didn't work, tell why it didn't work. If you didn't like it, say why. I've commented before that I didn't like the way something went just because I don't like it when such-and-such happens, or it's just not my type of movie. Always back up your bad stuff with somments as to why you thought it was bad. And to be politically correct, it's better to say it "needs work." It never "sucks." To make this even better, if you have a suggestion of some kind of how to correct the problem spot, you can make it. The author will decide whether or not your suggestion fits their vision.

To round out the review, just make a general statement about the script, touching on the some good point again, and commenting on the overall quality of the script, whether good or bad.

This is just a basic rundown I follow when I do a review. You'll see some people do page numbers and such, and it can get really extensive, but if you aren't looking to go that far with it, this basic four stage idea will get you by. It is not by any means set in stone, but I hope it helps.

Good basis from George.

I usually just mention ANYTHING I did and did not like about the script as I go along, I use page numbers when I can. A lot of discussion has been made about technical stuff vs the story, but I think mentioning anything and everything necessary to make the script better is important. Even stuff on the technical aspect of it.

I think it's important to mention the strengths of the script as well as the weaknesses. Good things could ALSO help build on and keep the good things in the script and strike out the bad. It doesn't have to be ALL negatives. But I don't think good points should be brought up just to butter the writer up though. If they can't take a review, then they shouldn't offer it for critique.

The only thing that really pisses me off is when someone says that they don't like it but don't say why. I don't mind if someone doesn't like one of my scripts as everyone has different tastes, and you can't help that. You could even say that the script blew monkeys for quarters for all I care, just as long as you tell me why, that's all I care about.

And I think it's important for both parties of the writer and reviewer to remember that a review is just one opinion, and shouldn't be taken so seriously. Some things will be agreed upon and other things won't. It's not a life or death situation.

Sometimes readers completely miss your vision or intent. I won't lie and say that doesn't bristle me in the first raw reaction. When this passes, I look to see if they've made a valid point. If so, that's a big help.

Often, it's just a matter of varying tastes. You could rewrite it 10 times, and they'd still hate it. On those, you just agree to disagree.

No one's opinion is better than anyone else's. Like noses, everyone has one.

I'd say you need a large cross section of comments to see what points keeps coming up repeatedly.

You can't go too wrong if you review another's work the same way you'd like yours done.

Some people get mad when you don't take the advice they give you. Some just ignore your comments and never acknowledge them, which is an insult after you have spent all that time to read something.

Here is the problem. This site has adopted the read or else you don't get any reads but that is a flaud logic. I have noticed people only writing these nice cute reviews just to get reviews and it works... Is that what we want?

For this reason 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.

Personally, I don't want a cute review. I want the review of such a bastard critic that I get some solid feedback. If that person hates every point of something I wrote, that's fine, but I want the commetary. I want to know where I went wrong, and I want to know why. I almost prefer a bad review to a good one as long as the bad one says something productive. I had one script that several people liked and said some good things about whilegiving some good feedback about what to improve and then one person said it was slow and boring, but failed to say how. I obviously made no changes based on that review because I didn't think it was slow, and the reviewer never gave a single example.

I'm optimistic that Balt will, someday, return.

It's a shame that he couldn't learn to tone his language down a little.  His critiques were accurate and fair.  If not for his this sucks goat balls kind of reviews, he would be a major player on these balls, er, boards.


Phil

Quoted from George Willson Personally, I don't want a cute review. I want the review of such a bastard critic that I get some solid feedback.

I'll remeber this George! The gloves are off. From now on I will give you my honest gutfeeling thoughts.

You are right in your post some other place here that I can't remember, but it's probably true, that the more you "know" a person, the more careful you are not to hurt their feelings.

I will try this new approach and see what happens. If I become known as a mega B****, I'll revert back to motherly lovey dovey.

I’m sick and tired of the accusation that only a certain few reviewers are honest with their reviews. I’ve never given a dishonest review! A review isn’t better or more accurate just because the reviewer is mean about it.

This nonsense that only a few select members give honest reviews is like a tired old broken record.

The glowing suck-up reviews are painfully obvious. So I’ve got more tact than to tell someone their script sucks or whatever. That doesn’t make me dishonest. It just makes me a more tactful reviewer. You guys need to get off this, “Only certain people give honest reviews crap,” because it’s just not true.

I agree with what people have said thus far, so I won’t repeat it. However, when I point out faults in a script I try to give examples of what might work better.  

As for how I take reviews of my work; it’s a matter of taking what I want and leaving the rest behind. I’m usually just grateful that’s someone’s made the effort to read it.

But it annoys me when people skim over scripts quickly and really have no idea about the script they’re viewing. It’s a waste of time.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson The glowing suck-up reviews are painfully obvious. So I’ve got more tact than to tell someone their script sucks or whatever. That doesn’t make me dishonest. It just makes me a more tactful reviewer. You guys need to get off this, “Only certain people give honest reviews crap,” because it’s just not true.

I agree, Brea. Someone once said that tact is about making a point without making an enemy. I think some reviewers have made plenty of the later and none of the former.

I think reviews are precious, regardless, good or bad.

My western short for example had two reviews that were not positive at all. However, both of those pointed out some things that had not been mentioned previously and I agreed that they were indeed points that needed to be addressed.

The positive comments are all good and I take them to heart, but I do not dismiss the negative ones because they sting a little.

Every writer should take a review seriously regardless. The ones that don't mean anything are the ones that say "good/bad job, I liked/hated it". Anything more detailed than that is worth it weigth in ink for sure.

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.

As far as I'm concerned if the writer likes your review, who are you to judge what a review should consist of?

To start making guidelines, the reviewing on this site will go down even further in the gutter. Fact is, half the people who review are only doing it to get reads and that's the wrong reason to do it.

If you're not reading scripts for entertainment, to learn or just to read something than you're on the wrong site.

These kinds of people are leaving me with a headache because deleting what I affectionately call "cute reviews" is getting on my nerves and they usually lead to fights or shameless self promotion which means more work for me.

While there shouldn't be any enforceable rules regarding what goes into a review, a review has to consist of more than a few words.  And it should consist of more than  listing all the typos, misspellings and grammatical errors.  It should also consist of more than

Looks like everything I was going to say about your script was already said by others, so I'm just going to say that it was cool.

No scripts here are perfect.  Even if you can't find a problem with one, you can always go into detail with your compliments.

Since George mentioned this thread in another thread, I thought I would bounce it up the list.


Phil

I am pretty harsh in my reviews.  Every so often, I'll read a gem of a script and say some good things.

But I do have a suggestion for reviews.  Can we start discussing the story more?  A lot of reviews point out page by page formating issues, typos, and very rarely touch on story issues.

On the other side, some writers take extreme ownership and are inflexible with trying new things out.  I suggest trying new things.  If someone suggests writing a scene a certain way, try it out.  If you find it doesn't work, then just revert back to your prior revision.

I submitted a short I wrote that should show up here soon.  It's called Afternoon.  I hope to just discuss the story, so I'll put myself out on the chopping block.  I want to thoroughly discuss the main character.  I think, I'm holding back, and I want to hear suggestions.

tweak

I used to try to point out typos and stuff, but I worry much less about that nowadays. As long as the story is easy to follow I don't worry about those things. I don't really think pros worry that much about it either to be honest with you. I've read some winners at competitions where the formatting was WAY OFF, but the script still won or placed and I've also read features where producers want rewrites of a script and I've wondered how they ended up reading the script in the first place because it's so off regarding formatting. Sure, it's always better to look as perfect as you can, but my feelings nowdays is that the story trumps everything else.

Also, typos are not that important until you're working on the final final final draft of your script.  Characterization, plot, pacing are more important.


Phil

Eh...I'm on the fence with this one.

I proof my stuff pretty well, and appreciate people pointing out typos.  I won't post a new version for it, but they'll be fixed on my personal copy.

But if you read a script littered with typos, the author probably doesn't care and you are wasting your time giving them a laundry list -- so yeah, point taken there.

Glaring format errors should be pointed out to the novice.  You can tell who breaks the rules on purpose and who needs some pointers.

Typos have their place and I think pretty much any comments are valid.  Except those where the reviewer tries to rewrite the story. I don't like those.

I think if you are reviewing a script on a site like this then you should try to help the writer achieve their vision of the story, not yours.  If you can't help the writer achieve their vision then you might as well just post the typos.

I'm new and I'm here to learn.

Knowing (typos, grammar, etc...) won't help me much. I would want to know if my story is sound.

Where are my real problems. The stuff that will kill my script if I send it out.

Good luck all

Quoted from dogglebe 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'm sorry, but I disagree with you.  Spelling and grammar are an integral part of a writer's tool bag.

What you are saying is like saying to a builder: "Don't worry about bringing a screwdriver along-- all you need is a hammer.  Heck, don't even worry about a saw."

I agree with you, that we shouldn't overload our critiques with these issues.  Absolutely, I agree with that.  Line by line edits don't necessarily help the critiquer or the critiqee because there are too many levels; the critiquer needs to develop a sense about where the writer is in their developmental path.  As a critiquer, we have to discern what we feel is important at any given time.

Some writers are excellent writers, but all they need to learn is spelling and grammar.  I've seen it before; so we shouldn't make blanket statements telling people how to critique.  Instead, we pay attention to guidelines and learn and incorporate what we find is helpful to others.  This will be different of course for everyone.  The important thing to remember is that we stir the recognition within the young apprentice so that they can recognize that there is no "Single Right Way."

In my personal experience, ( and I've been through the whole: check list critiquing methods) the best way to work is by pointing out what especially strikes you (the critiquer) as the reader; and focus on a few aspects.  I mean what strikes you as both good and bad.  It doesn't mean that you are right.  It's just a tool that you use to help the writer to get a feel for potential; and also to be aware of the deficits and that's all.

Sandra

I go back and forth on my method for typos/grammar.  If there's a few typos here and there, chances are I won't point them out.  If, however, the story has tons of typos/grammatical/punctuational errors to the point where it makes the story hard to read, then I do bring that up.  If it's actually interrupting how you read the story, then that's the biggest problem IMO.  

And punctuation! Ahhh!  Some people continuously misuse it!  It drives me insane!

I have to agree with Sandra E's simile about a writer posting a script with bad spelling and bad grammar is like a construction worker not bringing a screwdriver or saw to a job.  It's kind of like a chef with only a microwave in his restaurant.

When I first started reviewing scripts, I pretty much made it a point not to mention typo's or even formatting issues and focused only on story and characterization.

But, as I'm sure a lot of people have noticed, :-), I'm now mentioning a lot, if not all of the typos I am seeing in the short screenplays.  One, because I got very sick of a lot of the laziness on the stories that people were posting, so I'm hoping they get sick of hearing about typo's and when they post  something else, they'll pay a little more attention.  Two, because I started thinking it wasn't just laziness, but that the writer just didn't know better, or, in a lot of instances, was still a little bit new to the English language, and I might help them realize what mistakes they have been making.  And three, because myself, the obsessive-compulsive side of me screams when I see an error in my work and I'd like every typo to be pointed out so I could fix it.  True, I won't repost a story just for a few misspelled words or misplaced commas, but I'll still fix it before I send it out to any competitions, directors looking for scripts, or agents.

But I still feel that the story and characterization are the most important aspects, also.  They're the driving force in the script and I try to comment as much on that as I can, also.

Does anyone use writing software that doesn't have spellchecking on it?  Word has it.  So does Final Draft.  Any misspelled words are highlighted for me fix.

While story and characterization are more important than spelling and grammar, reading a script filled with such mistakes can make it a painful experience.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe Does anyone use writing software that doesn't have spellchecking on it?

Actually, I use Cinergy's Script Editor Software, the free version.  There is a version you could buy that has spellchecking along with numerous other great little extras, like page-to-storyboard, but the free version I have doesn't allow spellcheck.  Which, I think, is kind of a blessing because, for me, it makes me pay all that more attention as I'm typing, which ultimately helps in the long run with how the grammar is worded.  Yet, after I'm done writing, I still copy it as a .doc file and run the spellcheck through my Word.

Cinergy does have a couple problems still, though, like how it automatically paginates every single page, which sucks if you want to have a title page, and then how the first page of the script isn't supposed to be numbered.

I've heard good things about Celtx, but haven't checked it out, yet.

I just don't see the point into dropping how much ever money it costs, I've heard and found different prices, for Final Draft when there's other programs I can use just as easily and get the same effect, except for the damn Page #1.  At least not until I start making a good deal of money explicitly from screenwriting, anyway.

Also, I was just thinking about it, spellchecking would help a great deal in most scripts, but I've noticed a lot of misspellings that spellcheck wouldn't catch.  For instance, a lot of people switching 'there' and 'their' and examples such as that..  Or 'where' and 'we're', believe it or not.  Your and you're is another popular one.  Now, ultimately, those aren't very significant, and I usually won't mention those unless I see the author do it over and over again in a script.

- Mark

When a PDF is generated from Celtx it doesn't put a number on page 1.  From my experience with it and FD, I actually prefer Celtx.  Granted, my version of FD is older (version 5 or whatever), but the features are almost identical and I can export to pdf with it.  I hear the latest version of FD allows you to do this, but I'm not ready to drop the cash on it just yet, especially since I only use FD when I need to send an actual FDR file to someone.

Celtx also has a spell check feature that's pretty in depth, and if you're like me and use a lot of in' endings instead of the standard ing in your dialogue, they can be added to the dictionary with no problem.

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.

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

It's very easy to comment on a ton of scripts when the feedback consists of "Good script...me likee very muchee"

Quoted from Shelton It's very easy to comment on a ton of scripts when the feedback consists of "Good script...me likee very muchee"

I find the scripts that "I likee very muchee" the hardest to comment to on, particularly with shorts, because when giving a review I feel like I'm supposed to find a fault but if there isn't one then it's hard to say anything more than "me likee very muchee" It's then that I'll talk why I liked it and what my favorite bits were.  

I was just skimming through some of the July Challenge reviews and I noticed a few people aren't putting spoiler warnings on reviews that contain spoilers. Remember to put those warnings in people.

It's a matter of context with regards to "what" is pointed out. There is no "one size fits all" critique.

Some writers have issues with grammar and spelling, but their stories are spectacular in other ways. If this is the case and the critique artist can see that the carelessness, or just the unawareness is reflecting badly, then it's important to point it out (as someone who wants to encourage the apprentice writer) the errors.

One need not point out every single error. I understand your point because this would be stupid. It's a waste of time for the person doing the critiquing and a waste of time for the writer who might cut huge scenes and portions; rather, the critique artist needs to discern what they consider important. Sometimes a whole lot is wrong, but certainly one critique is not the place to mention everything.

It also deflates a person when too much is mentioned. The only exception is when someone is paying for a critique. If that is the case then I would say that the feedback needs to be in depth and that would include typos.

Regarding the "wholeness of the critique" I would say that one also needs to take into account the age of the writer. If the writer is twelve years of age, then certainly they need help understanding simple grammar that even us grown ups get confused with-- like lie and lay for example.

This kind of discussion is one of the reasons why this board is so good. We all are able to integrate the ways we approach the craft.

I hear you though about critiques that point out every little error. I've seen them before and I've thought: What a waste of time.

It's a matter of discernment. Just the fact that this is pointed out in a long thread such as this is excellent.

Thank you for this.

Sandra

Quoted from George Willson 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.

.
Thank you George for raising light on this. I will add: Even if you don't purposely read to learn, I think that you are still learning in all kinds of subtle ways that might not be apparent.

The point about "reading to teach": This is very paradoxical or, (sorry-- it might not be a very good word. I mean complimentary.) I think that we learn a lot from teaching-- things that we wouldn't otherwise manage to dig up and we might wind up with some lost impression or concept that we feel we can use in our next great masterpiece.

You know, even when we know lots, or we think we know lots, when we work with raw materials, (I mean fresh scripts, books or whatever) we get emotions by the bucketful and things come to mind that we might not get otherwise.

I envy you if you are at the point when you don't need to read to learn. For me, I think I will be reading to learn for many lifetimes to come.

It's always tough for us poor writing shmucks. No matter whether we're savoring a bit of a glow in some kind of writing success or whether we are banging our heads against the wall, or the computer keyboard, we are never satisfied. Even if we hit the big time, I'm sure we'll be horrified by our work. We'll look at it in disgust. We'll see every tiny error on the page...

Oh gosh! Maybe it's just me...

There is no end to this is there?

Sandra

Thank you Mike for pointing us in the right direction.

Ste, regarding your crit, don't worry if you ever feel you don't have much to say. That's the way it can be sometimes. But if you stop for a moment, and just take a little more of a look, you'll think of things; you'll see things that you didn't at first.

I'm a believer that everyone has a story to tell that only they can tell; so too, their view and the way they see things is important. You don't need to be fancy. Your opinion counts. Don't be afraid to share it. Just explain why. Give examples. That's the most important advice I can give here. No matter what you do, give examples of how to do it better if you can. And if you just sense something is wrong, but aren't sure what, then I think that that is almost as good as an example. Someone else might figure it out and the discussion will lead to enlightenment for all.

There are many ways to critique. One good critique artist I read about told about her method of giving a summary of what the story is about, and doing this first.

I kind of agree with that sometimes, but not all the times. (Especially when you can't figure out what it's about. LOL) Actually, today I was working with a sci-fi story, (not script) that was brilliant with science jargon, but not so brilliant with clueing the reader in on what it all meant. The story was lost inside what was like a very good kind of Science Digest, but written for scientists only.

One thing I would recommend is to simply write what your impressions are, using some tact of course. A person should NOT try to cover everything that's wrong, but just pick out what you feel needs attention for this go around.

I remember getting some critiques back on some older work of mine where the critique person obviously spent a huge amount of time, but the thing was: It was a waste because it was still only draft material where a bunch of stuff is going to get cut anyways. Why fix up what's going to get torn down?

Now, it's different if you are collaborating with an author and you are working on really polishing something to its final stages, then you can work together maybe using tracking in Word or a similar feature in a program like Final Draft.

My critiques are usually more detailed because that's just the way I do things, but I don't point out too much grammar and typos unless I really feel like the writer needs to kick it up a notch because I can see that it will make a big difference for them.

Even if you are totally new to doing critiques, you will often have brilliant insights, if you look a bit and try and think critically. Often people here come up with such great insight that a person goes: Wow! I wish I would have thought of that!

Pay attention to some of the longtime members here. They have already walked the path and they know what they are talking about.

Sandra

I agree with you Sandra.

I'm not going to comment on that script specifically because that was just my opinion. Especially, given the time limit for the challenge most of my reviews have erred on the positive. Also, I struggled with coming up with ideas for my own script so was even more impressed with the batch I've read so far.

I'm just learning screenwriting myself so format and story structure is what I'm concentrating on...therefore if I don't see a problem with either of those things then I struggle to come up with a worthwhile critique. I think there is a difference between a critique and a review. Both have their benefits to the writer.

I enjoy reading your reviews though.

Ste

Quoted from Sandra E. I remember getting some critiques back on some older work of mine where the critique person obviously spent a huge amount of time, but the thing was: It was a waste because it was still only draft material where a bunch of stuff is going to get cut anyways. Why fix up what's going to get torn down?

But how could the reviewer know that? This is why we should never post our first drafts.