As always, it looks like the majority of those who entered a script, did shit in terms of reading and reviewing, which is both sad and unforgivable.  Even those who read 15 or so, or whatever, that doesn't cut it, peeps.

You enter, you read and you review.

I honestly wish Don would simply ban those peeps who don't partake from entering the next time.  It's a total slap in the face to those who entered and really tried.

I did not enter, but I read and reviewed over 25 scripts...whether or not I read more than a page, doesn't matter, because I gave each script I opened up the same opportunity.  I wish more peeps would incorporate the same and that way, each script would have alot more feedback, whether it be positive or negative.

Word to the Mutha.

Jeff, I really do not agree with you that opening a script and reading a page or part of a page is 'reading a script' so you didn't come near to actually reviewing twenty-five scripts. Pia even commented on one that she wished you'd stuck with it cause you missed out on a good one.

We could all write a review based on one page, it wouldn't take half as long or require anywhere near the effort of getting through most of the scripts and reading them fully - so I think your self-righteous attitude is a bit misguided and sanctimonious to boot.

I think there's more Pro's than Con's re: the amount of reads the average script gets.

If you look at the stats, there's currently 3263 members listed for this site. The amount of writer's who actually come around for an OWC is about 30 or so... that's only 1% of board members. Now, that might seem like a low number when taken out of context, but more than appreciated when a person is encouraged to read and comment on as many scripts as possible.

If only 50% of those who entered read and commented on a script I submitted, then I'm lucid with appreciation! ... one happy camper to be exact. Can you imagine if even 5% of members showed for an OWC?  Most would be lucky if they got 1 read, let alone any comments... and that goes double for myself.

These OWC's are an invaluable experience to gain writing skills. This is a real world classroom that blows away any screen writing book I've ever read. I've learned to decipher which comments are useful by repetition (from other writers), and shrug off the ones that aren't... I believe most have learned to do the same.

Then there is

the traditionally 2nd OWC award show:

(Join in if you like to add other categories or insert your own favorites)


Top 5 main characters

Dr. Mortician (Diary of a Shock Therapist)
Jack (Checkpoint Charlie)
Casey (A Darker Being)
Gemma (New Order)
Alex who? (The Strange Case)


Best Horror:

Pond Life
Limbs
Checkpoint Charlie


Best Action:

Scary Birthday


Top 3 monsters:

Blob (The Starving Sea)
Unnamed man with a long coat (New Order)
Dracula (Scary Birthday)


Best setting:

Brothel (Checkpoint Charlie)
Basement - Cottage (Limbs)


Best Story:

Hard, hard choice: A draw

A Darker Being
Checkpoint Charlie
Scary Birthday


Best concept:

S.H.E Frankenstein


Best titles:

Monster Spray
S.H.E. Frankenstein
The Phantom's Song


Best "potential" feature concept:

The Riding Hoods' Creed


Best "potential" streaming platforms/ mass media:

The Starving Sea






(My votes in this order:
Recommend
Diary of a Shock Therapist
Checkpoint Charlie
The Starving Sea

Consider
A Darker Being
Scary Birthday
Pond Life
Ill-Conceived)

There aren't 3k members that frequent here. From the regs that do visit, I think 30 entries is pretty solid. I also think that if 2/3rds of that actually do a lot of reviewing, then that is pretty good too.

Most people are good people. If you do them a favour, they want to pay you back in some way. They feel obligated. I'm sure that in the majority of the cases of those that don't participate in the reading, that they have very good reasons for not doing so.

Jeffrey's reviews are mostly about making himself feel better. He'll use throwaway comments like 'awkward phrasing' but offer no examples of it, nor any advice on how to do it better. The reason for that is, if he tried, it would be visible to all just how poor of a writer he really is. He really has a cheek complaining about lack of reads from other writers when his own reads are all but useless... damaging in fact, in some cases.

Quoted from Gum These OWC's are an invaluable experience to gain writing skills. This is a real world classroom that blows away any screen writing book I've ever read. I've learned to decipher which comments are useful by repetition (from other writers), and shrug off the ones that aren't... I believe most have learned to do the same.

I agree. My entry hasn't got as many reads as some but it has enough. They are quality reads with quality feedback which has allowed me to figure out what works in this draft and what doesn't. I've agreed with some comments and disagreed with others. I now have a very clear idea of what to aim for in the next draft.

That is priceless! I'm so grateful I discovered SS and take part in the OWC. It's fantastic.

If you take part in an OWC with the struggle of finding a concept, knocking out a script in a short period of time, having it busted part whilst reading and reviewing others, and see how the community decides on its favourites, then you can only improve and grow as a writer.

They can be hard, demoralising if it doesn't go well, but what an experience.

Thanks Don

PS we mentioned it last time, so it doesn't need endless repeating, but there is a donation button on the front page of the simply scripts web site. Can you imagine it if this disappeared one day?

I agree with Mark and Reef, SS is an invaluable resource and service, why I'm more than happy to help out with STS where I can (have two interviews lined up) and am more than happy to share the screenwriting leads I find.

I've also made a commitment to donate whenever I option/sell something and recently did just that (again) after Graft got optioned by a producer in Australia... I don't want to see SS go same way as Moviepoet!

Anthony

Limbs isn't on the Writers' Choice form, or indeed the list at the start of this thread. Did I miss something?

I probably missed something.

Quoted from LC Jeff, I really do not agree with you that opening a script and reading a page or part of a page is 'reading a script' so you didn't come near to actually reviewing twenty-five scripts. Pia even commented on one that she wished you'd stuck with it cause you missed out on a good one. We could all write a review based on one page, it wouldn't take half as long or require anywhere near the effort of getting through most of the scripts and reading them fully - so I think your self-righteous attitude is a bit misguided and sanctimonious to boot.

Libby (and anyone else who feels the same), if this is truly how you feel, than that's your prerogative.

If you feel like I purposely bale out early on scripts to get through them faster, you are 100% incorrect.  If the script is well written, well conceived, and interesting/engaging, I'm all in.  If it's not, I'm not going to waste my time, and that's just the way it is.

As I always say, I would be very surprised if my comments are not helpful to each and every writer, as they are usually things that few if any see or realize.

Call me an ass, call me a douche, but hear what I say and take it to heart.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Jeffrey's reviews are mostly about making himself feel better. He'll use throwaway comments like 'awkward phrasing' but offer no examples of it, nor any advice on how to do it better. The reason for that is, if he tried, it would be visible to all just how poor of a writer he really is. He really has a cheek complaining about lack of reads from other writers when his own reads are all but useless... damaging in fact, in some cases.

Dustin, I feel pretty damn good about myself before reading and/or commenting on scripts.

What's going to be very visible very soon is what kind of writer you are, when the curtain is pulled away, and your script is revealed.

At that time, we can revisit your comments and you can do everything in your power to dispute what I said about your script.

Should be fun, huh?  

Ya, I guess using that particular (Member) stat to make a statement is a little over the top. I was merely pointing out the potential for chaos regarding people who might enter an OWC.

One stat that’s easily recognizable is “The most users online was 266 on May 27th, 2015, 10:34am.“

If you plug that page into the Wayback Machine, you can get information pointing to a previous (February 2014) as having the most users online at any given time and before that a May OWC… and so on. Indicating the average OWC will bring out quite a few people, just to browse.  I’m just stating that if the (OWC) is interesting enough to browse, then there’s somewhat of a potential to have a majority of people submit for the next round, especially if the theme was a flavor of the month media event...

As well, I didn’t mean if a writer doesn’t agree with other writers in a thread, that the information/review is not useful or helpful, quite the opposite. I just meant posts that are not really useful towards the writer in an obvious way.

Just my loonies’ worth, didn’t mean to open a can of worms…

Quoted from Dreamscale Dustin, I feel pretty damn good about myself before reading and/or commenting on scripts. What's going to be very visible very soon is what kind of writer you are, when the curtain is pulled away, and your script is revealed. At that time, we can revisit your comments and you can do everything in your power to dispute what I said about your script. Should be fun, huh?

Like I've already said to you, Jeffrey. What you think about my script is neither here nor there... but I will gladly take your comments apart when the time comes. You really are a glutton for punishment.

Quoted from Dreamscale If you feel like I purposely bale out early on scripts to get through them faster, you are 100% incorrect.

It's bail, ffs. B-A-I-L.

Jeff & Dustin.  As predictable as the sun and moon haha.

C'mon, you two.  You are cluttering up the discussion.

But now I find that I can no longer wait for the reveal.

Please send me by PM the title of your script, Dustin.  I simply must have a read of Jeff's critique.