I don't see why it matters when the writer chimes in either. They shouldn't sway an opinion either way.

Maybe do the first impression, let the writer say something if he/she so chooses. Continue using the same formula until finished and it saves the writer from going "over a hundred responses by the time I was able to chime..."

I'm guessing the writer is looking at the thread closely so you wouldn't need to shut it down and wait.

Anyway what's next for the script club?

The writers chiming in sways the interpretations that people make.   I personally don't look at the script thread when I'm doing this - purposefully - to give my interpretation of what I read to the writer with out the interference of what they might have intended.  I would think the writer would welcome feedback on how people interpret what they write, without having to tell them what they meant by it.  

I agree 100%.

The scripts should be judged on their own without explanations otherwise we might as well just post comments in the regular script thread.

I hear what you're saying Michael, but I do think that it can help when one is "confused" or just doesn't get it, for whatever reason.  Many times, people read through a script more quickly than they should, and they miss many things that they wouldn't in a filmed medium.

And another thing to think about is that many of the readers we have in here, aren't actually even movie watchers...they're more into the written word, and don't actually "see" what's happening on the page the way an actual movie buff would..

I always have lots of questions for the writer, and I do my best to keep the conversation going after the fact, but no one else seems to care, and the thread dies a premature death.

We both know how difficult it is to respond to literally hundreds of posts after the fact.

I'm cool with whatever everyone agrees on, but I do believe there is merit letting the author chime in every now and then about things that may be misinterpreted, etc.

If one is confused, knowing that, is invaluable to the writer.  If more than one person is confused, that is priceless.  A writer won't know that if he corrects the first person.

I don't think that second statement is true.  I can only think of two readers who would consider themselves not movie watchers  and only one of them who wouldn't "see" what is happening on the page.

Once again, the script club isn't about the writer's response - it isn't even about feed back.  The writer's response and your feedback, correcting grammar, general reviews are for the the script thread - not the script club.  The script club is about reading a script and analysing it on a number of points - it is about the reader's interpretations of those written words - if that's different than what the writer intended then that is the writer's problem isn't it.

I can remind you again, if we were doing a produced script then we wouldn't have the writer chiming in at all.  

I think if we had seperate threads for each topic that would be good. Otherwise it becomes a mess. I know this was frowned upon a few posts back, but I like the idea.

You're definitely right, Michael, but I still think it's not a bad thing to get insight as a reader, also.  For instance, in a filmed version of a script, it is glaringly obvious what the tone is...what the feel is. In a written version, that's not always the case.

I can think of hundreds of examples of movies that totally work onscreen, but don't on paper (or don't work as well, at least).  And vice versa, I see hundreds of movies that don't work, but I can easily see where they would on paper, and why they were most likely greenlighted.

As for produced scripts, of course, there's no way to get any feedback from the writer, but if these discussions were going on before filming, I bet ya the finished product would be vastly different, and hopefully much better.  Yeah, I realize these things do go on in much more detail and by much more knowledgable minds (in theory ) already.  I just think it's kind of fun to get insight from the author's perspective.

Again, either way is fine by me.

Quoted from mcornetto I can remind you again, if we were doing a produced script then we wouldn't have the writer chiming in at all.

Ummm... yeah.

Quoted from Shelton Ummm... yeah.

Besides Mr. Shelton who was kind enough to chime in on his produced script...

Good point, Mike!  Funny...

Seriously though, didn't you wish you could have chimed in at various times to set things straight, so to speak?  Do you think it would have helped?

I think there's a lot to be said for letting the conversation without any intervention from the author.  I just think that time frame should be a little shorter.

I think if there would have been two blocks of three days each with one day's response time for me in the middle, I would have been able to touch on a lot more than I did.

As it is, I don't think it was as beneficial as it could have been.

Personally, I'm against having separate threads.  One thread is just simpler.

As for the author's input, what if they were allowed to chime in once the thread reached a certain number of pages?  Like 3?  Then they can chime in again later, after so many more pages.

What are we going to do next?

Produced? Unproduced?

I've got a pretty good selection of produced and in production scripts if you guys want to go that route.

Why don't we get a list together and have another poll?  

Quoted from mcornetto Why don't we get a list together and have another poll?

I thought you already agreed to do Joe vs. the Volcano?