Quoted from Dreamscale I always vote for my own script. That doesn't mean I vote it as the highest score, but I give it a grade.  I give every single script a grade.

Probably shouldn't, Jeff - regardless of how you rate yours. It causes work as they have to go through and delete all of those that voted on their own scripts.

Quoted from eldave1 Probably shouldn't, Jeff - regardless of how you rate yours. It causes work as they have to go through and delete all of those that voted on their own scripts.

Agreed.

Totally off subject, but I was bummed that my OWC didn't make the top eight cut.  Or nine or ten or whatever.  And that most folks "didn't get it"

But then I remind myself that my absolute worst, piece of dog shit, not written in correct format, 3 day drunken bender found footage script THE CREEPS has had 4060 downloads in the last three years.   And I consider it to be the most embarrassingly inept and lazy thing I've ever written.

Yep.  And it's gotten more downloads and more praise than anything I've ever done.  I continue to SMH over this little tidbit.      

It's become impossible to predict what people will embrace or not embrace.  That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.  

"It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.    

I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!  

Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.  

End of rant.    

I know I keep saying this, but the "views counter" is not for the script itself. It's for the thread. There's no way of knowing how many times the script has been opened or downloaded. Unless Don can check on his server. In other words, that's how many times people and bots have opened the thread.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear I know I keep saying this, but the "views counter" is not for the script itself. It's for the thread. There's no way of knowing how many times the script has been opened or downloaded. Unless Don can check on his server. In other words, that's how many times people and bots have opened the thread.

Downloads, comments, threads, responses, etc.  It's gotten 4060 hits.  I've had projects up for ten years that haven't gotten those numbers.  I've gotten several messages and responses from people who thought it was great and the project was sold in under three days of posting the script.  

IMO, it was an easy read, no real headache and quick to get through.  But it was never very good.  And I'm using my own script as an example.  

Quoted from ericdickson That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.   "It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.     I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!   Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.   End of rant.

Can only speak for me, but when I write something akin to "easy read" is has nothing to do with the complexity of the story. For me it means:

- I understood things the first time I read them. Can't tell you how many scripts where I've read a passage and had to re-read it to get what the writer wanted me to see -  to get my bearings straight.

- Also happens when there are multiple characters and the writer does not do a good job on reminding us of who the characters are. e.g., DAVE will appear on a page after not having been mentioned for 30 pages and a reader has to go back to figure out who Dave was.

- Crisp and clean format wise. There aren't a ton of obvious errors and typos - those are really reading speed bumps - they detract from a reader's immersion into the story.

Long winded way of saying - easy and read - and simple story - are not the same things in my mind. I could have a simple story that is a difficult read and a complex story that is an easy one.

Quoted from eldave1 Can only speak for me, but when I write something akin to "easy read" is has nothing to do with the complexity of the story. For me it means: - I understood things the first time I read them. Can't tell you how many scripts where I've read a passage and had to re-read it to get what the writer wanted me to see -  to get my bearings straight. - Also happens when there are multiple characters and the writer does not do a good job on reminding us of who the characters are. e.g., DAVE will appear on a page after not having been mentioned for 30 pages and a reader has to go back to figure out who Dave was. - Crisp and clean format wise. There aren't a ton of obvious errors and typos - those are really reading speed bumps - they detract from a reader's immersion into the story. Long winded way of saying - easy and read - and simple story - are not the same things in my mind. I could have a simple story that is a difficult read and a complex story that is an easy one.

I've lost count of how many reviewers say - "This was relatively quick and everything made sense.  I didn't see any real errors.  Nice job!"  

Forget story.  Forget characters.  Plot.  Mystery.  Foreshadowing.  Subtext.  Style.    

I'm seeing a trend.  Everything needs to be spelled out right away.  Reviewers are confused by page 2 about what something going on in the scene means so they jump ship.  And that just isn't how real films are paced or put together.    

Why don't you read to page 3 to see if that piece of the puzzle gets worked out.  What if it's a mystery?  And you're not supposed to know what that thing means yet?  

This is just my opinion and how I see things.  I could be wrong.  

One thing is for certain.  Without a doubt.  When it comes to OWC, Nicholl, Page, Screencraft, Austin or whatever contest...

Format has become more important than story, character and plot.  If it looks clean...is an easy read...it will advance.   It will be praised.  

I'm not arguing against.  This hard fact has pushed me to really streamline my action and descriptions.  To make my stuff more reader friendly.        

Quoted from ericdickson I've lost count of how many reviewers say - "This was relatively quick and everything made sense.  I didn't see any real errors.  Nice job!"   Forget story.  Forget characters.  Plot.  Mystery.  Foreshadowing.  Subtext.  Style.     I'm seeing a trend.  Everything needs to be spelled out right away.  Reviewers are confused by page 2 about what something going on in the scene means so they jump ship.  And that just isn't how real films are paced or put together.     Why don't you read to page 3 to see if that piece of the puzzle gets worked out.  What if it's a mystery?  And you're not supposed to know what that thing means yet?   This is just my opinion and how I see things.  I could be wrong.   One thing is for certain.  Without a doubt.  When it comes to OWC, Nicholl, Page, Screencraft, Austin or whatever contest... Format has become more important than story, character and plot.  If it looks clean...is an easy read...it will advance.   It will be praised.   I'm not arguing against.  This hard fact has pushed me to really streamline my action and descriptions.  To make my stuff more reader friendly.

You make some excellent points.

I've come to appreciate that story is everything -- but, the technical side matters, too. It goes to the old baseball saying: Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical.

So, why not strive to master both?

I hate it when I make technical mistakes that impede my storytelling. (My submission this round was a great example.)

As to subtext and subtlety... I agree, this particular group, for the most part, prefers straight-forward storytelling. Part of that, I think, is that when not done well, subtext and subtlety just look like lazy writing. Done right -- it's amazing to see.

Another part of that comes from OWC's being shorts challenges. You've got to get to character and story very quickly. There's simply not as much room for development in those other areas.

All that said, I think you do see comments on storytelling, character, etc. here. They're just overwhelmed sometimes by the easier to spot/write technical-based comments.

Quoted from ericdickson Format has become more important than story, character and plot.  If it looks clean...is an easy read...it will advance.   It will be praised.

I wish I could, but I can't and don't.

My OWC didn't place either, and I'm rather shocked to see some that did.

I purposely placed a few mistakes in mine to throw peeps off, but it was about as clean as they come, yet peeps didn't like it at all.

Next time, I'm going to throw in mistakes all over the place and see if it does better.

Quoted from PKCardinal You make some excellent points. I've come to appreciate that story is everything -- but, the technical side matters, too. It goes to the old baseball saying: Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical. So, why not strive to master both? I hate it when I make technical mistakes that impede my storytelling. (My submission this round was a great example.) As to subtext and subtlety... I agree, this particular group, for the most part, prefers straight-forward storytelling. Part of that, I think, is that when not done well, subtext and subtlety just look like lazy writing. Done right -- it's amazing to see. Another part of that comes from OWC's being shorts challenges. You've got to get to character and story very quickly. There's simply not as much room for development in those other areas. All that said, I think you do see comments on storytelling, character, etc. here. They're just overwhelmed sometimes by the easier to spot/write technical-based comments.

Yes.  The idea is to master both.  But that's hard  

It's the way I tell 'em - Frank Carson RIP

Now we have the bemoaners.

Isn't this the usual trend with OWCs?

First we get the anger at the none readers, then we move on to the bemoaners. 'My script was great, yet it still lost.' Must be something to do with the readers. Yeah, that's it.

My script lost - must have been the readers fault, a conspiracy, or possibly a Beaver Moon.

Format is only part of the equation and story, character, plot all still trump it in everything I've seen.

There was some recent research done by Stephen Follows who looked at over 12000 scripts read and scored by Screencraft's professional readers.

As he says in part of his summation...
"The biggest correlations for success are within the subcategories of characterization, plot and style. Among the least important factors are formatting, originality and the script’s hook."

It's an interesting research piece, I think someone has posted the link before but just for ease - https://stephenfollows.com/analysis-of-12309-feature-film-script-reports/

Stephen was also interviewed on Ashley Scott Meyer's Selling Your Screenplay podcast - it's an interesting listen.

Quoted from ericdickson I've lost count of how many reviewers say - "This was relatively quick and everything made sense.  I didn't see any real errors.  Nice job!"   Forget story.  Forget characters.  Plot.  Mystery.  Foreshadowing.  Subtext.  Style.

They will say the first thing.  But not the second thing.