All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Is there going to be an OWC starting Friday? If so, don't you think we need a thread letting us know? You know, kind of getting people fired up for it?
Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but wasn't the last OWC horror? Getting a little redundant aren't ya? What about something uplifting and inspirational?
Don't forget the ever popular Family Friendly, Rated-G Mothers Day, provided it has mermen, red-neck pain worshipping zombies, werewolves and whatever else the Cryptozoology Department can wrangle up for the occasion.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
I'm not against the horror aspect. It's a polar opposite that is necessary if we are to ever laugh. Damn it all anyways, but that's the way it is.
Do I want to go about stoning people and mutilating their bodies? No. But...
Some people do. And I believe that those people that do, don't have a choice in their "make-up". I really do believe that.
I believe that the most gruesome criminals cannot help who they are. Hey guys, that lets you completely off the hook for enjoying writing horror for the sake of itself. But that's not my intention either. My desire is not to give anyone an easy "scapegoat". That's like the Christians that say, "Jesus died for me and now I can feel safe and secure in that knowledge... My sins are purified through his blood."
Rather than get into that cycle that our beloved Screenrider will understand completely, I want to encourage the middle line, whereby we all acknowledge that we are between "the poles". And, just like in The Matrix, we cannot exist without the opposites that construct our reality.
I don't ask anyone to take my word for it, but challenge that within yourselves. Test it. Experiment. Never stop asking questions. Don't just go with "stupid faith". Go with experience. (Qualifier: part of "stupid faith" is experience) but that's another story.
Gonna be good to see this OWC unfold. I'll be here, very excited to see what happens.
I'd love to see Jeff branch out. He's a character here that I always (can't express words) have this gravitational force for. A cool strong guy with an unbelievably soft heart that you'd never know by his posts.
I'm always amazed at people that hate horror and wonder about the sanity of people that love it. I have said this many times, I'm a very content and happy person, but I'm fascinated by the dark side of the human mind and what we are capable of.
IMHO, fluffy happy, feel good stuff is boring. Comedies and feel good dramas are not interesting to me. That doesn't mean, those people who like that are wrong. Nor does it mean people with interest in the occult, horror or absurd are bad.
How am I supposed to drink a cat? Oh. I geddit. Naughty boy. Still, the ladies do like that. I didn't think you that way inclined.
Den now,
Can we have one where all three British party leaders have a barefisted knuckle fight then go on a manhunt with machetes to finally finish off the rascists? Oh go on.
If I have to write another fecking song they'll be trouble. And it won't be tuneful. Again.
Here's a hint: don't expect Mother's Day as a theme. The scripts won't be up until way after Mother's Day. Might as well make it Easter or Ground Hog Day.
What's with the waffling on the page count? The first one was 15 pages, and then a later one I thought we had 15 pages, and I discovered you'd hacked it down to 12, so I had to cut some pages. If it's 15 again, can we make it stay 15, so we can read the rules once and never worry about it again? Or is that part of the "fun"?
I never said twelve pages, George. I think that may have been Don.... Though changing the page count is one way to mix things up. What if I gave a specific page number?
Phil, I suggest that you do give an actual page count, or at least a parameter that does not allow 1, 2, 3, and 4 page scripts. It's been a problem in the past, why not nip it in the bud now?
I kind of like that. After all, you're going to have people who want a specific length come out of the woodwork, so it might be a good idea to specify a length just to add another layer to the challenge. A lot of us (okay, I) struggle to keep it under the length, so why not turn the tables and grab at the people who tend to be a little short? Perhaps not a specific count, but a range, like Dreamscale suggested. Make it 10 (or 12) to 15 pages or something like that.
Phil, I suggest that you do give an actual page count, or at least a parameter that does not allow 1, 2, 3, and 4 page scripts. It's been a problem in teh past, why not nip it in the bud now?
Just a suggestion...
Why is it a problem if someone writes a 1 page script?
There are numerous competitons that require films of such length...Depict, Virgin Media etc...not to mention the potential revenue from viral videos.
Rick, the problem with 1 page scripts in this challenge" is that the majority of those 1 pagers are joke scripts, not taken seriously, not meant to be taken seriously.
Also, writing a 12-15 page script in a week is quite a bit different than writing a 1-3 page script, in terms of time.
I realize that there are numerous comps that look for 1 page scripts, or whatever number of page scripts. That's fine and that's cool, and it's a level playing field, because all the entries are 1 page, or whatever. That's not the case here at all, and IMO, it's a problem when the vast majority of writers push themselves to churn out a 12 page script, and a few throw together a 1 page joke at the last minute and get more reads then those that really tried.
True, Jeff, but there have also been 15-page joke-scripts submitted so I don't think a minimum page count will weed out those unwanted scripts. In terms of the actual challenge, I would consider it a much greater challenge to tell a complete three-act story in 1 or 2 pages than 15 pages. 15 is easy. Anybody can do that. Of course it takes less time to write 1 page but I think the planning takes longer than with a 15-pager.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I think the key word here is "solid", Jeff. Like you, I'm yet to read a solid 1, 2, 3, or 4-page OWC entry. But then again, I haven't read that many solid 15-pagers either.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
There have been some for sure, though. Cam has come through with 2 very solid entries the last 2 OWC's. I think my Halloween entry was also pretty good.
The point, I'm trying to make here is that it is difficult to write a script on an unknown topic and make it fit into 12 or 15 pages in a weeks time. It really is. That's why so many entries are piss poor.
It's a great challenge and a great writing exercise. Rob, you should definitely enter this time around. Seriously! Good stuff, brother.
I suppose it just comes down to subjective opinion.
I think you make a fair point about the amount of work people put in...but I honestly don't think people will read more of the longer scripts if there are less short ones. I think the longer ones will still get the same amount of reads and you'll just lose any "extra" reads, if you will, on the shorter ones.
As far as I'm aware none of the shorter stuff has ever "won" so to speak, so I'm not sure what the problem is really.
Plus, I'd much rather read or watch a very good 2 minute short than an average 15 minute one tbh...and 99% of readers/viewers would as welll.
But anyway...like I say, it's all subjective...so as long as we know up front it's all good IMO.
I just really like super shorts, some of my favourite ever short films have been as little as 90 seconds long.
I, on the other hand, basically despise super shorts. I think they're a waste the vast amount of time.
I like scripts that have some meat to them, lots of long, meandering unimportant banter, gratuitous sex, nudity, violence, drinking, drugging, goofy cameos, name dropping, brand placement...did I already mention gratuitous sex and nudity...oh yeah, I did...sorry.
I LOVE short films too. I watch a lot more of those than I do features.
Atom Films used to be my favorite site until they decided to only do comedy. One of the best shorts I've seen was a Canadian horror/thriller where this guy drives home and all the people he sees are all mannequins. He ends up killing some of them in his house. Not one single word was spoken in it either.
I LOVE short films too. I watch a lot more of those than I do features.
Atom Films used to be my favorite site until they decided to only do comedy. One of the best shorts I've seen was a Canadian horror/thriller where this guy drives home and all the people he sees are all mannequins. He ends up killing some of them in his house. Not one single word was spoken in it either.
I agree...and research shows how people have very little patience on the internet. It's very difficult to get people to watch something over 6 minutes...over ten...almost impossible. Even sites like BBC Films (where people go to specifically watch films) say that anything over ten minutes will not get views.
One of the most moving films I ever saw was 2:30 long...about the realtionship between a man and his mother who was becoming senile and a backstory that was about the woman losing his daughter on the beach.
Moved me to tears in that time...an amazing piece of work. Packed more in than thousands of feature films I've seen over the years.
Phil, I suggest that you do give an actual page count, or at least a parameter that does not allow 1, 2, 3, and 4 page scripts. It's been a problem in the past, why not nip it in the bud now?
Just a suggestion...
I agree with Jeff, not to mention I wouldn't want to read five of his one page jokes in an OWC. No offense...
I thought the OWC was an excercize to put us under the gun as if we were commissioned writers. If a production company wants a 30 minute sitcom, you need to crank out 20-22 pages of script. (I think that's accurate, but not sure)
If they want a feature 90-120 pages...
I always looked at this as a director/producer coming to one of us and saying I need to make a 10-15 minute film about this... Blah, blah, blah.
Got nothing against one-pagers. But time limits are realistic in the biz if you're asked to write someone elses ideas...
All the shorts we write now are up to us as far as length 1 page, 17 pages... But, to me, this is a short we're asked to write.
I think the page limitations are a good added challenge.
The site would then have a whole ream of scripts ready made for potential filmmakers looking to enter that comp...
Couple of messages on filmmaking sites and there could be a nice little production opening for a whole load of simply writers.
That's just an idea...I'm not trying to "butt" in on the OWC or whatever, and maybe it's best left the way it is...but I think there's more than a kernel of an idea there.
You make a fair point for the super shorts. I'll have to give you that. I'll have to write a couple for myself off this one... My big issue is that while I can see them working ok in competitions, shorts don't tend to be marketable...or are they? If I have an awesome short, what do I do with it?
EG if one time we did a OWC for 90 sec. films aimed at this competition:
I'd be all for that. A different type of challenge with a budget in mind. I'm no where near the point of making film though, as I'm sure alot of us are...
Damn, if we only knew an accomplished director to take the helm on that one. Ahem..
You make a fair point for the super shorts. I'll have to give you that. I'll have to write a couple for myself off this one... My big issue is that while I can see them working ok in competitions, shorts don't tend to be marketable...or are they? If I have an awesome short, what do I do with it?
They are good for websites like Youtube or Atom Films...sites where they start to give you advertising revenue after a certain number of views. There are others as well.
On Youtube I believe it's about 40,000 views...that's an educated guess based on the fact a friend of mine was offered partnership once his upload had reached that level (he couldn't take it up because it was a clip from a BBC show).
1,000,000 views on Atom Films will net you around $30,000, I believe. They have to grant you a "Pro Licence" first. Not sure how that works. Mine and Pia's short "Unprotected Sex" was on there and I got contacted by the acquisitions team, then never heard anything again...so I'm not sure how you get it...probably just a matter of numbers though.
It exploded overnight and has ended up on TV, in national press..so there is the point that they can become viral and not only make money in themselves...but also act as advertising for your other stuff or your website where you sell stuff...or just yourself.
Frankly...a 60 sec. skit could be a damn site more valuable than a well-produced 20 minute short..which no-one will watch outside of festivals.
Now, obviously there are limits to all this...I believe there are only two people who make an actual living off Youtube (Michael Buckley is one)...but it's becoming more possible and it surely is going to become more and more so in the future.
This is the case for Super Shorts by the way...I'm thinking of little skits more than anything. If you mean longer, mroe serious shorts, that's a bit of a different issue...but I'm happy to let you know what I know...for whatever that's worth.
Buying pony that you are romantically involved with...sounds like horror, actually...as long as the pony is then sacrificed in a bloody ritual involving lots of gratuitous sex and nudity.
Phil, I thought we were going 15 pages? How'd we get down to 10 pages max, now? Between 6 and 8 pages? Huh?
I'd be all for that. A different type of challenge with a budget in mind. I'm no where near the point of making film though, as I'm sure alot of us are...
Damn, if we only knew an accomplished director to take the helm on that one. Ahem..
Wasn't thinking that we make them ourselves. I was thinking we write them then go onto filmmaking websites (dvxuser.com, for instance) and mention the competition (EG Depict) and the fact that there are a whole heap of ready made scripts on simply scripts for people who would like to enter the competition.
Bascially creates a little market for everybodies scripts and creates potential avenues for production for everybody.
As for the second point...I have "intentions" for something in the near future...but I'm keeping it under my hat until Michael has taken the glory with his Dark series.
Wasn't thinking that we make them ourselves. I was thinking we write them then go onto filmmaking websites (dvxuser.com, for instance) and mention the competition (EG Depict) and the fact that there are a whole heap of ready made scripts on simply scripts for people who would like to enter the competition.
That's a great idea to drum up interest in this site IMO. Wonder if Don's listening??? Of course he is, he's God...
Here comes Screen to nail me for my blasphemy... Wait for it...
"dvxusers" use a LOT of scripts from MoviePoet. Those scripts are 5 pages max.
There are lots of reasons why filmmakers like really short films...some are mentioned above.
Another is the logistics of festivals. The main criticism festivals have is that they are expensive to enter (the entry fees are high, you have to send your video by courirer, posters etc) and very few of the people that enter get their films shown. Thousands of people have to waste hundreds of pounds for nothing.
Some festivals wold rather therefore put three 5 minute films in, than one 15 minute film...and obviously the longer the film, the more shorter films you can fit in.
So if you make a long film...say 30 mins...your film is going to have to be really good, because it needs to be better than six 5 minute ones put together.
From a film-making standpoint, it's better to write short short scripts than long short scripts. It's much easier and cheaper if you are an amateur or a student to make a five minute film than it is to make a twenty minute one. And if you've done the film-making thing for a while you're more likely to film your own scripts. Plus in the coming age of the webisode, the market will be for shorter scripts. I've already seen paid calls for one page scripts from a couple of different sponsors. So, it's good to be ready.
And Rick you don't need to wait - give these guys a real assignment. It would be good if we could do that every OWC.
But Phil, seriously...in theory, when a challenge calls for a 15 page script (or whatever length we're talking about), then it's assumed we're looking for a 15 page script.
In the past, I think there was a minimum of something like 8 pages, but recently, that hasn't been followed, the scripts still get included and posted, and of course read and commented on.
As we all know (and has been talked to death in here recently), it's much easier to read and review a very short script, than a longer one...meaning that writing a crappy 1 pager or so almost guarantees you more reads and reviews. And that's not fair. That's not what we should be after. And that's not what this challenge is about.
I just don't understand why people seem to be having trouble understanding this very simple truth.
If the challenge was to write a 1 page script, then we write 1 page scripts. But, if the challenge is to write a script that is no more than 12 pages and no less than 8 pages, than any script that exceeds 12 pages or is less than 8 pages, should not qualify and be included in the final posted scripts. Simple, IMO.
It's very obvious to me, at least in terms of history, since I've been involved with the OWC, that the vast majority of scripts that come in under the maximum page length, do so because the writer ran out of time or energy, and it shows in the finished product.
Am I speaking in some kind of foreign language here? What am I possibly missing?
What you seem to be missing is that it's a challenge and not a contest.
Why do you want your fellow writers barred from the OWC if they did their best? I don't get it.
If the challenge for you is about writing exactly a 15 page script, then do that.
My challenge in these things is to try and get a script out in a single week that I think could have potential as a film...I've failed in the past to even get one in in time.
STEVIE is tied to a chair. Blood and sweat pour off him. He stares painfully at the camera.
STEVIE Ok, I give in. I hearby promise to my fellow SSer's that my OWC entry WON'T be a comical pisstake of the theme and genre. (looks O.S) Was that alright?
JEFF, dressed in medieval jailer's gear, wanders in.
JEFF Yeah, that'll do, you Aussie prick. And no more spelling 'ass' as 'arse' either. (beat) Now, fuck off. I've got a bus load of nudie girl tourists to eviscerate...
FADE TO WHITE
But seriously, i agree with all Jeff is saying. Set the page length and adhere to it. Cheers stevie
In the past, I think there was a minimum of something like 8 pages,
I've been here for five years...I know, very sad... there has never been a minimum that I can remember.
There used to be a lot fewer entries however. Like 12 or so and they were all by boardmembers. Not by people that just happened to hear about the owc on some other site.
I personally liked it better when it was a smaller more intimate group.
I don't recall any minimums, if nothing else going over seems to be more common. It's also tougher to hit in general, as it requires a tighter story and stricter editing.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
My challenge in these things is to try and get a script out in a single week that I think could have potential as a film...I've failed in the past to even get one in in time.
This is a good point. People have commented that they weren't challenged by the genre/theme; many times these scripts were very mediocre. Those participating shouldn't just be cranking out a script. They should be writing it as if it might be produced.
There used to be a lot fewer entries however. Like 12 or so and they were all by boardmembers. Not by people that just happened to hear about the owc on some other site.
I personally liked it better when it was a smaller more intimate group.
I think when there were fewer entries, not only was it more fun. Like guessing who wrote what, but readers also cared more about their comments and everyone tried to be very helpful to each other. Not just speed reading in order to get through all 38...
Normally, I'm all for "the more the merrier", but we've also had a lot of people who just submit, but don't read anything in return. However, last time Don did a good job on letting people know who was not reading. That helped a lot.
I think, what I meant was that when there were fewer entries and they were all by active board members, there seemed to be more care in the comments.
IMHO, having 40 entries and a lot of them being total strangers who don't read or never show up here again, does not help this site. Well, at least not the forums. Maybe that's just me though...
The best scripts in the OWC are almost always from the active board members. The worst of the bunch tend to be from people who don't post on here and don't make the effort to comment on other scripts, or even respond to the comments about their own. The challenge would hardly suffer from losing a few of these leeches.
For me, I try to make the effort to read all of the entries if I enter the challenge. When there's only a week or two to read 30 to 40 scripts it can be tough to get them all read in that time and leave constructive feedback. Especially when you know some of the scripts you are reading are by people who will not even bother to contribute. So some of the comments and reads get rushed to cram them all in. I think that's why Pia is saying the feedback was given more care when the entries were fewer, because you knew the feedback would be appreciated and responded to.
Having some of the crappier entries definitely detracts some time that could be better spent writing constructive criticism for the serious entries. Don's system of letting us know which scripts are by active members seems to help, but there is still a fair bit of clutter in the end. Is it possible to remove scripts from the forum if the authors don't comment on a given number of entries? Even reading and commenting on 3 other scripts would seem feasible for everyone IMO, and that is really not making much of an effort at that. For people who don't participate at all, can't we just take their entries down? Just a thought.
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Scuba Diving? Beware the zombie dolphins. They're fierce this time of year. Course, the zombie guppies's are also runnin', but they have such tiny little mouths...
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
Oh, I'm so sorry, I kind of massinvited for you(( Accidentally really. In my defense - I never speed read and I try to read many. I kind of had an idea but seeing that you want to keep it to true members...
My challenge in these things is to try and get a script out in a single week that I think could have potential as a film...I've failed in the past to even get one in in time.
Sorry I'm slow to catch up on this thread. My feeling is that probably what needs to happen in the future is a tier system.
--First tier: Beginners or people who rate themselves as beginners.
--Second tier: Those with some experience, but just hacking it out. These folks would probably be most of us. Some times we have strokes of brilliance, but mostly, we're just struggling to keep our heads above the water.
--Third tier: The writers that have it down. They can sit down in a four hour session and have a story so well crafted that it would make most of us want to curl up and die because we know we are way far off that mark.
For myself, it's a challenge just to get through one of these events. I don't find them easy at all. Come to think of it, I'm scared of participating in another one.
Another oddity surrounding this particular iteration of the OWC that I submit for your consideration is the propagation of the curious word "pisstake".
Not a word I generally use myself, but its adoption here has certainly been unusual.
A search of the May 2010 board for the word "piss" reveals 40 instances of the word in its various forms in 32 posts -- mostly in the form of "pisstake".
I was kind of disappointed this particular go-round, as I generally do look forward to these.
I know that a certain amount of bitching and groaning always accompanies the announcement of the OWC genre and theme -- and I realize they are meant to be challenging -- but in the future, I would hope they are also a bit more conventional.
I would also point out (to somebody...who could it be?) that one of the most successful "star" scripts around here -- a good, filmable script as opposed to a pisstake -- arose from a nice, straight-up horror challenge back in the day.
that one of the most successful "star" scripts around here -- a good, filmable script as opposed to a pisstake -- arose from a nice, straight-up horror challenge back in the day.
Blame Phil, I do. Fucker. I didn't write one. Give cred to those who actually wrote a serious entry. Was a tough challenge. Hate not entering. Feel like the bus left for school and i didn't make it in time.
Matter of fact, that's reminescent of me childhood. No wonder I'm so stupid.
I hate to be whiney...but I really dislike the slow posting of the scripts.
I know you have a life Don, but...I'd hate for a bunch of them to be posted right when people quit reading and start guessing who wrote what.
Pia, I'll keep that in mind in the future. Oddly enough, this go around, I felt that I was posting them too quickly and was worried that each batch wasn't getting enough exposure.
Perhaps next go around I'll post them all in one fell swoop.
I know that a certain amount of bitching and groaning always accompanies the announcement of the OWC genre and theme -- and I realize they are meant to be challenging -- but in the future, I would hope they are also a bit more conventional.
Bert, yes, there is always complaining about the genre and theme. A couple of things I was surprised about was that I thought the genre and theme this time would elicit a very strong, vocal reaction. This was a tough theme. I was gobsmacked when I read it. I came up with nothing. I wasn't expecting a lot of scripts. Just the opposite happened. There were over 40 submissions of which around 35 have/will get posted.
While there was a certain disappointment in this genre and theme, I didn't get any "Fuck you, Don and fuck your stupid one week challenge," emails from anyone on the release of the theme and genre. So, in my mind, a success.
Maybe in the future we can throw in a more conventional theme and genre and see what happens.
I'm still waiting for my script to be posted and not really expecting too many reads. I think the main problem with this OWC isn't the theme/genre but the people who have posted numerous 'joke' scripts. 40 is a lot to get through, especially when quite a few of them are deliberately badly written.
I hate to be the one to advocate 'more rules', but I didn't take part in this OWC and from an observer's point of view there does seem to be quite a few bad vibes about this one. It's also completely clogging up the portal...
Two rules to consider imposing from now on (stop me when you disagree):
- A limit on submissions by each member: personally I'd argue that one entry per member is quite enough - if you try and write a bunch in a week they're all bound to receive less care than they should. I know a lot of people write multiple submissions, though, so I'd argue that a limit of two each would be sufficient. Fewer entries = more reads, few entries each = more equal attention for everyone who entered, and probably fewer entries each = better scripts.
- Some requirement that an entry has to fit the theme - I know some people like the piss-take scripts, and say that just reading serious entries, particularly with a theme as tough and abstract as this, would be tough-going. But what's the proportion of joke-to-serious entries this time? I haven't read any of the scripts, but I'd guess it's pretty high. I R-E-A-L-L-Y don't want to tell Don how to run his own website - he does a fantastic job anyway - but I do think when it comes to the OWC submissions rules should be a bit stricter. Format rules, a page length-band, some serious attempt to actually meet the challenge...I don't know whether "pisstake" (to use Bert's favourite word) entries should be blocked, but I thought I'd raise it for consideration.
---------
As I say, I didn't take part this time. But I have in the past and I see how this particular edition is unfolding, and those are two issues I thought I'd flag up.
While I agree with both of your suggestions, I think the last one will require a lot of work on Don's part. He would have to read through all of them to weed out all of the pissers. And who's to say what's a pisstake and what's not (it could just be a badly written script).
I know Don likes to keep Simply Scripts open to basically everyone - which is what is so fucking great about this place - but I do agree that the rules could be a little tighter when it comes to the OWCs.
First, in my opinon, the OWC should only be open to board members.
Second, while we shouldn't take the fun out of the OWC, I think that if Don or Phil ask the participants to keep their entries straight then people should definitely repect that. And fucking ban them if they don't.
The people who participates obviously feel a responsibility to read as many entries as possible and it would be a real shame if those reads are "wasted" on joke scripts. Nothing wrong with a good joke but why not wait until after the OWC is over?
My .02
Rob
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
For what it's worth, people's opinions are always going to be their opinions, even when they're wrong. I did write something this time, and while I cannot admit to a great amount of time devoted to it, I did try to follow the theme, be a little creative, and not make a joke of it. Mine has been accused of not following the theme, not being serious, and being a joke I must have heard that I wrote down. So how do you deal with scripts that people think are jokes, when they actually weren't written as a joke?
I also found that people like bandwaggoning. Once one error is found, then there are multiple errors and the script sucks. Then everyone finds said error, and suddenly it's not an error, it's errorSSS. My script contains a single typo. One. Uno. I've doublechecked, and it only has one. And yet, for some reason, people have posted that it has "multiple typos" and apparently "multiple formatting errors." When the names are revealed, I'm going to challenge those who posted said comment to point out the other errors. I know they don't exist.
We are a site of writers, and while we adore exaggeration, we also have to write accurately. If we can't write an accurate review, how can we expect anyone to take us seriously? You can't write multiple typos when the script contains only one typo. It's inaccurate. It makes you look like an idiot. Apologies if I just called you an idiot. You'll know who you are in a few days. There's more than one of you. But honestly, pay attention to what you're writing down, people. If you're a writer, then words are your life.
In the end, it apparently doesn't matter what you write. There is little hope of doing anything that will be accepted.
Oh yeah... The number of formatting "errors" (and I use the term error very loosely here, since it's somewhat arguable). One.
Who's going to decide if they're a joke or an honest attempt? Is mob mentality what rules? Would you like a mob to decide if you were trying to meet the challenge or not? Would you trust their decision?
Honestly, you can't make subjective rules about these sorts of things.
It's only recently that people have been submitting more than one entry. There was always an unspoken rule, called the Helio rule, which said you can only enter one script. I say we just continue the unspoken rule - people coming into the site during an OWC are unlikely to write more than one so you don't really have to make it this formal thing.
And as far as closing this to just board members. How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site? When countries do things like that they call it isolationism and it's really bad for the economy. Much better to allow multiculturalism to flourish. The more and different input we get the better writers we can be.
If it's closed to just board members then people can come to the site and enter - they would just have to sign-up for an account. Also, if there were less entries I think it would be possible for moderators or volunteers to read through them to check if they fit the genre/theme (similar to how they do it on moviepoet).
The main point I agree with that Jonny brought up though is the limit on entries per member. Unspoken rules are fine, as long as people stick to them.
Hmm...feel like I might have started something here.
For the record, I was not advocating the institution of new rules.
I was simply pointing out something weird that happened when the topic/genre were really weird -- and suggested that we keep such a possibility in mind moving forward -- lest it happen again.
Also for the record, Don rocks, and my comments were in no way directed at the way he runs things 'round here.
And as far as closing this to just board members. How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site?
If the OWC is such an important and attractive event on the site, then closing it to members is exactly how to make the site grow. You're assuming that people won't join up, I'm say it's going to have the opposite effect.
Quoted from mcornetto
Much better to allow multiculturalism to flourish. The more and different input we get the better writers we can be.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but don't you have to be a member to provide input?
I'm not understanding your argument for keeping the OWC open to anyone. Some of the folks that enter the OWC do it through the main site and they're probably not even aware that the discussion board exists. This also means that a lot of reviews are wasted on writers that are not around - and are not giving any feedback themselves.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Movie Poet doesn't specify genre. The last time it did was the horror contest and if you remember there were plenty of arguments and disagreements about what horror was. As far as I know a decision was never made except individually by the readers.
So, do all these entries meet the theme? I suspect most of them do, therefore none of them would be disqualified.
As far as the board member thing goes. It would be silly to enter the contest and not be a board member. I don't think we really have a problem with that. Why make rules if they aren't even an issue? If you're talking about active board member then how do you define that? How many posts does someone have to have in order to be active? Do they have to have logged on in the past year? What qualifies them?
Who's going to decide if they're a joke or an honest attempt? Is mob mentality what rules? Would you like a mob to decide if you were trying to meet the challenge or not? Would you trust their decision?
Honestly, you can't make subjective rules about these sorts of things.
Again, this is just a suggestion, but I think it could quite easily work the same way you used in the last OWC.
Have a panel of people - maybe the moderators - who divvy up the scripts between them and read a few each. With the majority there won't be a problem. But if you come across one that you think isn't in the 'spirit' of the challenge, then you flag it up and get everyone else's opinion on the panel. If a simple majority (say 3 out of 5) think it isn't actually within the bounds of the challenge, then it doesn't get posted, and the person who submitted it gets a quick message explaining why. That way it's not one person's opinion, but the collective judgement of trusted individuals on the site.
I'm not saying we should try and choke the OWC under new rules, I'm just saying that there are a couple of things that could be raised for discussion. And Don did say it's a continual work in progress...
If the OWC is such an important and attractive event on the site, then closing it to members is exactly how to make the site grow. You're assuming that people won't join up, I'm say it's going to have the opposite effect.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Michael, but don't you have to be a member to provide input?
I'm not understanding your argument for keeping the OWC open to anyone. Some of the folks that enter the OWC do it through the main site and they're probably not even aware that the discussion board exists. This also means that a lot of reviews are wasted on writers that are not around - and are not giving any feedback themselves.
You are assuming the site is the boards. The site is not the boards. The site is http://www.simplyscripts.com. That's what pays the bills - not the boards. Excuse me Don for stating that so plainly.
Movie Poet doesn't specify genre. The last time it did was the horror contest and if you remember there were plenty of arguments and disagreements about what horror was. As far as I know a decision was never made except individually by the readers.
Fair point, but at the same time there weren't any out and out comedies during that month.
Agreed with Bert, these aren't complaints about how Don or any of the mods run things. If everyone abided by the unspoken rules then there would be no problem. When people don't abide by them, I think you need to make them a little more formal.
They can, but if you're asked to write a horror and unintentionally write a comedy then you've failed the challenge.
As I said before, the main point I agreed with from Jonny is to limit the number of entries per member - I think that would sort all of these issues out as people wouldn't want to waste their only entry.
Every genre should contain some comedy, just like every genre should be dramatic. A genre only indicates what you should expect from the story. If I tell you drama, then you pretty well know you're going to get a dialogue heavy script where the story is primarily character driven.
In a horror, you know you're going to get something that typically contains death and revulsion along with a fair amount of applicable imagery. However, that script is going to have drama between the character dealing with the situation and there's going to be some comedy to break up the atmosphere a little bit so you don't keel over halfway through.
A genre is a guideline for expectations, not a repellent for other elements.
Let's be honest here, this OWC has been a let down. Which is a shame because normally they are a lot of fun and you get some quality scripts arise out of it. I think the way to avoid another disappointment like this one is to be less stringent with the actual theme. If the theme is too narrow it limits the direction and approach you can take with the story. People who want to enter but don't like the narrow guidelines rebel against the restriction imposed on them and write pisstakes and joke entries as we have seen here. How many have been serious entries, and furthermore, how many of those have actually been good? Less than five I would say.
IMO a theme should never impose itself upon a story, it should be subtly woven into it. So the people who have tried to weave a story around this month's theme have been met with comments like 'Doesn't fit the theme/Not enough debate between vegan and carnivore'. While the ones that do focus more on this aspect are being labelled as boring, generic, lacking a story or conflict. It seems like a lose/lose situation. If you try too hard to nail the theme perfectly you are sacrificing your own creativity and the opportunity for the characters to dictate where the story may lead.
That's why the last OWC was a bigger success. The theme was simply 'The Dark' and the rest was open to each individual's interpretation. If the theme is looser it gives people the chance to write the stories they want to write and be able to fit the theme into it. Which will produce better entries than writing about a theme they have no interest in and trying to fit the story into it. If people can have more freedom in what they can write about then there won't be so many joke entries as they'll be spending their time writing stories they care about and are invested in.
There'll also be a wider variety of stories which will make reading all the entries more of a pleasure. This month's have been too similar and therefore gets quite monotonous reading and commenting on them all. To me an example of a theme could be things such as: -new beginnings -a deadly desire -self sacrifice -redemption -last resort -for the love of money -second chances -against the odds
Just a few off the top of my head. I think even though there were 40 submissions this month they probably only came from about 20 or so authors. Which means less reads and debate on each script. There are some still in single figure comments that have been up for awhile. If the challenge is a bit more open you'll get more people enter and people focus on one really good script insrtead of several half-assed ones and it will be better for everyone.
Damn...I go to sleep at night and look what I miss!
Lots of good points from everyone here.
I sure hope I'm not the one George is calling out.
I agree with Tim's last post here...pretty much completely.
I also want to point out that there have been complaints about multiple pisstake entries in the past and nothing was done about it. There have been complaints about scripts that go over the page limit in the past, yet once again, we have at least 1 script that clearly is over the 15 page max that got included.
If we want this thing to run a certain way, it has to be enforced. When something happens that shouldn't, it needs to be addressed immediately.
In the past, I've been one of those that has complained about certain issues, to the point where I said I wasn't going to participate again, as the integrity of the OWC had been lost. Maybe that's why I didn't take this OWC seriously and entered nothing but pisstakes...very funny pisstakes!
I know that a certain amount of bitching and groaning always accompanies the announcement of the OWC genre and theme -- and I realize they are meant to be challenging -- but in the future, I would hope they are also a bit more conventional.
I thought this was a pretty conventional theme. From the scripts I've read, there was plenty of room to play with it and some can be shot on a student filmmaker's budget. There were complaints about how some were selected in the past (sci-fi/popcorn comes to mind).
I think, in the future, non-SSers shouldn't be invited. And I think that people should be limited to only one submission. If you have time to crank out two or three scripts, then you're probably better off working on one really good script and tweaking it..
Quoted from mcornetto
And as far as closing this to just board members. How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site?
These 'outsiders' post a OWC script and then they disappear on us until the next OWC. If they're not members, then they can't even post feedback. And it's the feedback and active participants that help the site grow.
I sure hope I'm not the one George is calling out.
Had to go back and look to see, and sure enough, Jeff commented on several typos. But it is Jeff's nature to exaggerate. He was one of a few to say it though.
So, looking at what people have said, I reccommend a couple of things that should hopefully ensure a few issues are avoided next time:
- enforcing the 'Helio rule' - one entry each. If you want to use your entry for a piss-take, then that's up to you. But it should mean more entries that honestly try to get to grips with the challenge.
- a minimum, as well as a maximum, page limit - it is, after all, supposed to be a challenge. If part of that challenge is keeping your script UNDER a certain amount of pages, then shouldn't it be OVER a certain number of pages, too?
That wouldn't require much more than the briefest of flick-throughs from whoever was checking, and for people to be honest when uploading their scripts. As for the 'tackling the theme' thing - well, that is more subjective, although I do think that with one entry each people will try to use that one shot as best they can.
- a minimum, as well as a maximum, page limit - it is, after all, supposed to be a challenge. If part of that challenge is keeping your script UNDER a certain amount of pages, then shouldn't it be OVER a certain number of pages, too?
We discussed a minimum page limit, but since it is possible to write a very short, quality script, we didn't want to rule those out. There are actually contests out there for these ultra-shorts, and we also reasoned that people are more likely to sit through a 2 minute short than a 15 minute one. Hence, no minimum.
EDIT: Every time someone says "pisstake" you have to scream.
Damn...I go to sleep at night and look what I miss!
Lots of good points from everyone here.
I sure hope I'm not the one George is calling out.
I agree with Tim's last post here...pretty much completely.
I also want to point out that there have been complaints about multiple pisstake entries in the past and nothing was done about it. There have been complaints about scripts that go over the page limit in the past, yet once again, we have at least 1 script that clearly is over the 15 page max that got included.
If we want this thing to run a certain way, it has to be enforced. When something happens that shouldn't, it needs to be addressed immediately.
In the past, I've been one of those that has complained about certain issues, to the point where I said I wasn't going to participate again, as the integrity of the OWC had been lost. Maybe that's why I didn't take this OWC seriously and entered nothing but pisstakes...very funny pisstakes!
So, basically, because I wrote a script that was a whole two pages too long (and a story, for that matter, that has resulted in one of the best young visual effects artists in the country asking me to let him help out making it) you've decided to sabotage the OWC for everyone and waste the time of people like Phil and Don who have to work hard to run it?
We discussed a minimum page limit, but since it is possible to write a very short, quality script, we didn't want to rule those out. There are actually contests out there for these ultra-shorts, and we also reasoned that people are more likely to sit through a 2 minute short than a 15 minute one. Hence, no minimum.
EDIT: Every time someone says "pisstake" you have to scream.
Then let's have a special, super-short OWC. I know 2-page scripts have their place, but I'd argue that the shortest OWC entries aren't usually the best. They're often rushed, minimal-effort entries, and show that (I accept there are exceptions). It'd actually be more of a challenge if the boundaries were, say, 6-12 pages.
I didn't think the challenge was all that bad to be honest. Two completely opposite characters should lead to drama naturally. It was challenging because I know very little about veganism, but I guess that's the point of the 'C' part of OWC.
What's mainly pissed me off about this is that my script isn't a pisstake *screams for George* and it's yet to be posted. Some people have said they aren't reading any more scripts based on all the joke ones - which is fair enough - so I'm wishing I spent the time on something a bit more productive than writing a script that probably isn't going to be read all that much.
Would it be fair to say that most of the 5 page scripts came from the Movie Poet writers? They limit themselves to five page scripts don't they? What if the next OWC had a definite page count rule? If we said a script must be ten pages long, then we can discard the five page and shorter scripts. How does that sound?
Would it be fair to say that most of the 5 page scripts came from the Movie Poet writers? They limit themselves to five page scripts don't they? What if the next OWC had a definite page count rule? If we said a script must be ten pages long, then we can discard the five page and shorter scripts. How does that sound?
Phil
Just to give an example, the Sir Peter Ustinov Award I linked to on the 'Contests' board accepts scripts that are between 30 and 60 minutes long (which we can take as being roughly 30-60 pages). I think this 50-100% band might be a good idea. So, for instance, if the maximum limit is 12 pages, the minimum is 6.
That way, the longest script is, at most, twice as long as the shortest script. At the moment, we have a situation where some scripts are six times longer than others. That, to me, is too wide a range.
George, I apologize if I made a mistake in my review of your script, but I actually doubt I would purposely exagerate anything for no reason. Would you PM me your script's name, so I can go back and give it another read? I will not reveal anything about you being the writer.
Rick, I didn't try and sabotage anything. I am hardly the only one who entered a pissatke...at least I hope not, cause it sure looks like a shitload of pissers to me. In fact, I have never entered a pisser before this OWC, and we all know there have been many a pisser.
In response to either your script or any script that goes over the page length, IMO, it's a simple no brainer...you go over the page count, you're out. Why is that hard to understand? If someone is putting effort into their entry and they are running close to the page count, things need to get cut out to make the limit...plain and simple. Anyone who decides not to do that, isn't playing by the rules set forth.
I remember very clearly having to cut out almost an entire page awhile back and posts all said that it seemed like the end had been rushed and things had been chopped. If I hadn't have played by the rules, and just decided to run over the max page limit by 1 or 2 pages, then everything would have been fine and dandy.
Greg, no, that wasn't a pisstake post, either. IMO, my pissers are very funny. In fact, I've been laughing out loud for over a week about them. But then again, I do find really bad movies to be the best comedies out there.
What if Don starts by only posting the scripts from active board members, and the outsiders who have submitted an entry only have their script posted after they have commented on a certain number of scripts? If they don't contribute then their script simply isn't included in the challenge.
I think 6-12 is a good figure as is the 50/100 split band. I've written serious drama scripts between 6-8 pages that felt full and developed. One of them was for school. It can be done.
I don't think many other rules have to be put into place. People start talking about new rules after every OWC because the whole thing is a shit show from the moment the genre/theme is announced. In the beginning, it worked out because there weren't as many people entering and people took it for what it's supposed to be: a fun exercise. Now there's 40-50 people entering each time around, some of whom just taking it way too seriously. I think more members enter than anything so excluding nonmembers is a waste of time. I think the whole thing's just gotten so big that you're gonna have to put up with some bullshit from time to time.
Greg, no, that wasn't a pisstake post, either. IMO, my pissers are very funny. In fact, I've been laughing out loud for over a week about them. But then again, I do find really bad movies to be the best comedies out there.
Yeah, there are talks of rules every time, but few remember what this was in the beginning. It was mid-2005 and Phil had entered (or heard of) this New York midnight script challenge where the entrants were supposed to write a short script of no more than 15 pages over the course of a week based on a genre and theme. It was an actual contest, folks. He proposed that just for practice, we do the same thing. I think there might have been 12 scripts in all. Not sure. The original thread is gone.
All these extra rules for this tradition are unnecessary. It's supposed to be fun and you write what you want to write based on what you were given. I know there's no way I'll be able to read them all, but I'm reading a few of them. Once the names are revealed, I'll go back and be sure to read anyone's who commented on mine.
I take the OWC as seriously as we should take it. It's writing something for everyone else to read. It might or might not be used later. It would be a good idea, though, to write something that you can market later. There are always junk scripts. Always. But that's just par for the course. The junk ones will settle to the bottom and the better ones will rise to the top. Already, you can look down the list and find some with more comments than others. Why? Because some people look at the comments before they read to determine whether it's worth their time. Poor comments, and they skip. Good comments, and they read. This is not to say that highly commented ones are the best, though it sometimes works out that way.
I imagine we'll keep the OWC around for awhile because people do like it for its freedom. Why remove that freedom with extra rules?
...few remember what this was in the beginning. It was mid-2005 and Phil had entered (or heard of) this New York midnight script challenge where the entrants were supposed to write a short script of no more than 15 pages over the course of a week based on a genre and theme...(**ahem**) bert proposed that just for practice, we do the same thing.
Well, there you go. So bert made the original proposition. I just remember the genre and theme were Phil's doing. I believe it was a drama about a funeral home and a bully or something like that.
I remember. I joined around the third OWC. The Western at a general store. Those were the days...
Going back to the NYC Midnight Script origins, it might be an interesting experiment to use their "heat" system for a future OWC, that is to say multiple genres and themes. Not sure exactly how that would work but like I said. An experiment. Like writers getting paired up for the Sci-Fi challenge a while back. Food for thought...
Well, there you go. So bert made the original proposition. I just remember the genre and theme were Phil's doing. I believe it was a drama about a funeral home and a bully or something like that.
That was a good one actually. Martin wrote a script called Reqiuem that I still remember, about an albino boy.
I found the original wording on my own site. Here is what we had to work with in the first challenge: "write a drama about a funeral worker who has to prepare the body of a bully from his childhood."
This means that this challenge was fairly close to what we had to work with on the first one. I think some people found that too restricted, but it turned out some good entries. I'm also not sure what the page limit was then. My entry was actually 18 pages.
On a completely different note than my last post...
Anyone notice how the vegan and carnivores are being stereotyped? Pretty consistently, actually. The vegans are portrayed as cultured and classy (and in the case of dual sex scripts, they are usually female) where the carnivores are usually male and a bit dirtier and lower on the class scale.
I give thumbs up to those who break the mold here. So far, there haven't been many.
That first one was a good one, though people complained that the genre was too restrictive. People have always complained about the OWC. Some say they're too easy; others say they're too hard. Others say they're going to enter, only to back out when because they don't like the genre/theme.
My big gripe with it is that outsiders are entering it who are not SS members and won't read other people's work. I've read about eight of the scripts so far. I don't have the time to read the other 32 of them. I'll probably wait for Don to post who read what and read those who actually post here.
On a completely different note than my last post...
Anyone notice how the vegan and carnivores are being stereotyped? Pretty consistently, actually. The vegans are portrayed as cultured and classy (and in the case of dual sex scripts, they are usually female) where the carnivores are usually male and a bit dirtier and lower on the class scale.
I give thumbs up to those who break the mold here. So far, there haven't been many.
There's been a lot of the typical argument that we all know. The script known currently as Dumb Animals did very well because it presented the argument from the opposite point of view we normally think of. It did so more in pictures than in dialogue and I think that was important in this case.
We can all argue until the cows come home about topics like this and it just gets very old for us and so readers get very tired of hearing it over and over.
I've read and commented on 28 of 29 and am reading the 29th in a few minutes.
I complained about this challenge and still think it's extremely weak and pigeonholing us into writing a script we don't want to...BUT...I did enter 3 scripts.
I will read every single script as I always do. I'll comment on every script as I always do. People may not like what I have to say, but it's going to be honest feedback.
IMO, there are very few decent scripts so far. As far as "good" scripts, I've only rated 2 scripts with 3 stars, and that was pushing it (4 stars is what I'd call good, and of course 5 stars is what I'd call great).
The vast majority are getting 3 to 5 X's, and that's not pushing it.
Maybe that's why I didn't take this OWC seriously and entered nothing but pisstakes...very funny pisstakes!
Quoted from Dreamscale
I complained about this challenge and still think it's extremely weak and pigeonholing us into writing a script we don't want to...BUT...I did enter 3 scripts.
You wrote 3 scripts to waste everyone's time. Cool.
The problem I had with this particular challenge is that it virtually guaranteed a multitude of scripts with pages of dialogue that sound exactly the same as the others. Sure enough that's what we got. The fact that the genre was drama took a lot of the potential fun out of this OWC, IMO. By the amount of pisstakes(sorry...blame the Aussies) it just seems a lot of people were itching to have some fun with this theme.
As far as the page count debate, I personally like the twelve page limit. I also think four or five would be a reasonable minimum.
"it was a drama about a funeral home and a bully or something like that."
Now, that actually sounds like a very interesting theme, open to all kinds of interpretation.
No, Greg, I didn't write 3 scripts to waste everyone's time. In fact, a number of people, including you seemed to like at least 1 of them.
Redskin and Ill were probably 2 of the 3, right? Maybe the lesbo one also?
My question is why would you even bother submitting something if you weren't taking the challenge seriously? As amusing as your scripts may have been, it was probably obvious that they didn't fit the theme, thus making me ask what's the point of reading it if the author isn't going to take this seriously? And with 37 other scripts to read, no less, many of which probably weren't pisstakes. Except that stupid Cabin one.
Nope...sorry, but I can't take credit for Redskin or Ill.
If you think the majority of these scripts weren't pisstakes (damn, I love that word now!), I think you're way wrong...or else, there are just a whole shitload of terrible writers competing this go around.
My 3 scripts all fit the theme and genre...at least in my mind they did. I took the challenge seriously enough to write 3 horrendously written scripts that were hilarious in both delivery and content...again, IMO.
I bet more than half are pissers, and hopefully close to 75%!
I complained about this challenge and still think it's extremely weak and pigeonholing us into writing a script we don't want to...
This is an important part of the OWC. What if a filmmaker wanted to film a ten minute comedy about an alcoholic auto mechanic, and he was giving you a week to write it? Would you turn him down because the idea doesn't do it for you?
On a completely different note than my last post...
Anyone notice how the vegan and carnivores are being stereotyped? Pretty consistently, actually. The vegans are portrayed as cultured and classy (and in the case of dual sex scripts, they are usually female) where the carnivores are usually male and a bit dirtier and lower on the class scale.
I give thumbs up to those who break the mold here. So far, there haven't been many.
This was one of my biggest problems with the challenge and one I predicted beforehand. Tons of vegans using words like "barbaric" and carnivores talking about how delicious meat is in a patronizing manner. This is seriously people not trying. Even if the story's original, these kinds of characters indicate writers not paying attention to a specific facet of their writing.
Contrarily, I tried to break the mold but it backfired on me and actually left me somewhat annoyed by the reviews which doesn't happen to me often. I'll get to it when the names are revealed.
No, Phil, I wouldn't turn anyone down when money is on the table. In your scenario, I'd write a 10 page script on the topic. Since it didn't specify genre, I'd have lots of options on where to take it.
Your theme/genre was extremely stifling...it didn't really give many options on execution, IMO. The part about a vegan and a carni having a discussion over their feelings on the subject left little room other than talking heads saying the same thing over and over.
I apologise for inadvertently lodging the word 'pisstake' into SS vocab!! I'm over the word myslef now!
Seriously though, i had no prob with the drama genre. How many of us have tried to write a draama? How many of us read any scripts posted in the Drama section? I had some good serious ideas but didn't get time to do them. I offered one to screenrider but he wasn't keen to enter. I admit my script(which hasn't come up yet) is a comedy BUT does have drama and conflcit involved. And it fits the general theme of the challenge.
if we change the theme after 2 days because everyone is whinging about it, well, that kind of defeats the purpose for me. Its like grabbing a lucky dip then saying, 'oh, I don't like this, let me try again'.
As Phil says, one day one of us might get a gig writing something under prerssure and on a certain topic. We have to be prepared for that.
As to page length, I think 12 pages was ok as a max. But we have to set 5 or 6 as a minumum and stick to it.
I'd like to see the next OWC as a pairs one like in Jan 09. That was great!
No, Phil, I wouldn't turn anyone down when money is on the table. In your scenario, I'd write a 10 page script on the topic. Since it didn't specify genre, I'd have lots of options on where to take it.
I said 'comedy.' Look again.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Your theme/genre was extremely stifling...it didn't really give many options on execution, IMO. The part about a vegan and a carni having a discussion over their feelings on the subject left little room other than talking heads saying the same thing over and over.
I disagree with you, there's plenty of wiggle room in this theme. If your ideas are limiyed to talking heads, then that's your shortcoming.
My 3 scripts don't have talking heads. I'm not the only one who didn't like this challenge, Phil. Maybe I'm the only one sticking up for what I said and still think now, though.
It was a weak theme/genre and it has yielded weak scripts.
There's no weak genre/themes, just weak writers.... biyotch!
I've read a number of good scripts that are based on simple, if not dull themes/loglines.
One of the funniest scenes in sitcom history involves four people stuck in an elevator. That's extremely simple but, if you're a fan of All In The Family, you'll remember this scene.
The best scene in Reserviour Dogs, IMHO, is the coffee shop scene. Five guys sitting around and talking about tipping sounds pretty dull but the scene was incredible.
Drama is one of the strongest, most emotional genres there is. It's basically the Daddy of all the genres...by far the most respected and designed to deal with serious issues in a serious and realistic way.
The Vegan/Carnivore thing, as I've said before, touches on some incredibly topical and powerful subjects from specieism to religion and it's also possible to create an infinite number of other reasons why someone could be either of those things.
Be honest...would a truly great writer be able to write a compelling story within that theme genre? Yes, they would.
People want the genre to be wide enough that it allows you to write what you want, which defeats the whole point of what the challenge was about.
The whole point is that it's supposed to be a challenge...and one that took you out of your comfort zone.
I guess I'm just a weak biyotch of a writer then, Phil, huh? Damn, I'm very sad now. My heart is broken, I think. I don't know what to do, where to turn, who to turn to.
Well, on a more positive note, it's almost opening hour so I guess I'll turn to alcohol...my friend...my confidant, my love...
One of the funniest scenes in sitcom history involves four people stuck in an elevator. That's extremely simple but, if you're a fan of All In The Family, you'll remember this scene.
Phil
If I could write like the writers of All In The Family, I'd do it for free. Just so that actors from the same show could generate the smiles in people.
I have a great amount of respect for writers and actors on that level.
And Phil, I'm a big fan of AITF but I don't remember the scene in the elevator you are talking about.
Archie got stuck in an elevator with a very educated and classy black man, the building's Hispanic superintendent and and his non-English-speaking wife who goes into labor.
Quoted from mcornetto
And aside from all this arguing we should thank Don for putting together this OWC and providing us a space to have it in.
Are there anyway to tell which ones are serious entries and which are not? Cuz it's quite frustrating and time consuming to read all 40 and found out half of them aren't serious entries.
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Well then, hopefully the non-serious entries are short.
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
I thought the one with the Doberman was a serious attempt. And Carnivore City. These scripts may not be the most polished, but that's no reason to say that the writers didn't take them seriously.
Why don't you guys that have been reading suggest the ones you think are serious, this way some of us that have been saving our reads will know what to read next?
If we didn't have the anonymous factor for the OWC, there wouldn't be a prob. You could pick and choose who to read first. It wouldn't change the quality of the read but it would save time.
I have no deal with the anon issue but it would solve a few probs.
Out of the first 15 I've read, these are the entries that I feel are serious:
The Contest Mythos (H)eat of Wartime City of Carnivores In the Grip of Winter In the Flesh A Dangerous Job
Don't feel bad if yours not included, I just haven't got to them yet.
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Huh...you know, this whole anonymous thing was instituted in the past -- when there were only a few of us -- and styles were often recognizable.
With all the complaining about nonmembers and such, perhaps this aspect has outlived its usefulness?
If these entries actually had names on them, I would probably be reading a few.
Question: Is it time to do away with the anonymity?
Those who deserve to be read would get read -- and you could choose to read something by a "stranger" if you wanted -- and the *ahem* pisstakes would likely cease to be a problem.
Seems to me it might solve a number of the "problems" in one fell swoop...?
[edit: And suddenly, life is whole lot easier for Don, too.]
Generally anonymous feedback is more honest, but seeing that some comments in this owc are really short and don't offer much as far as helpful comments. More like, yeah, I liked it or, I didn't like this one at all
Yup, add Wolves at the Door as well. I just read it, it's a serious attempt.
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Why don't you guys that have been reading suggest the ones you think are serious, this way some of us that have been saving our reads will know what to read next?
I will make suggestions tomorrow.
But two off hand are Dumb Animals and A Moment of Your Time
Truthfully, I'm not disappointed. Even the clunkers I'm happy about because at least they joined in and tried.
I think it has to remain anonymous. That's one of the great things about the OWC. Unless someone has a very recognizable style, a big part of the challenge is wondering who wrote what. Plus, I feel that knowing the identities of the authors would inevitably alter some of the reviews. At the last OWC, Don used stars or something next to the scripts to identify who had commented before in previous challenges. That helped me choose which scripts to read first.
And, I think everyone looks forward to the following Sunday when the names are revealed and some of the revelations take you totally by surprise.
I think it has to remain anonymous. That's one of the great things about the OWC. Unless someone has a very recognizable style, a big part of the challenge is wondering who wrote what. Plus, I feel that knowing the identities of the authors would inevitably alter some of the reviews. At the last OWC, Don used stars or something next to the scripts to identify who had commented before in previous challenges. That helped me choose which scripts to read first.
And, I think everyone looks forward to the following Sunday when the names are revealed and some of the revelations take you totally by surprise.
I agree. It's fun for me "not to know", but if some people really want to know ahead of time, I suppose Don could send out a "secret names list".
I guess it just depends as always and it all depends upon perspective.
I lean towards the anonymous aspect, but I understand that people can tire after awhile and it gets to be too much. Yes, I understand that.
It wouldn't hurt to try a non-anonymous OWC for the next OWC. If it doesn't work, it doesn't and we go back to anonymous. But if it does work, it could solve a lot of the problems people are having as well as making less work for Don.
I've read the first 20, these are, I think, serious entries:
The Contest Mythos (H)eat of Wartime Living the Lie City of Carnivores In the Grip of Winter Wolves at the Door In The Flesh A Dangerous Job Ill Redskin Dumb Animals
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
There are only 34 scripts posted. Where are the other 6?
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
I think I liked this challenge better than the previous ones and this is the fourth challenge since I became a member of this site. A lot of very good entries I think, and wow, written in a week - that's impressive.
Who's going to decide if they're a joke or an honest attempt? Is mob mentality what rules? Would you like a mob to decide if you were trying to meet the challenge or not? Would you trust their decision?
Honestly, you can't make subjective rules about these sorts of things.
It's only recently that people have been submitting more than one entry. There was always an unspoken rule, called the Helio rule, which said you can only enter one script. I say we just continue the unspoken rule - people coming into the site during an OWC are unlikely to write more than one so you don't really have to make it this formal thing.
And as far as closing this to just board members. How do you expect the site to grow if you don't allow an influx of screenwriters during one of the most important and attractive events on the site? When countries do things like that they call it isolationism and it's really bad for the economy. Much better to allow multiculturalism to flourish. The more and different input we get the better writers we can be.
Which is why I love you so much, Michael.
Intelligent. Creative. Beautiful.
Meeting you online like this is a great pleasure. (Don't want to fill you up with pride because pride comes before the fall...)
But you're a gem--as are many here on Simply,
You're an awesome group of writers and we aspire to work at your level.
THOMAS and STEVE, two ZOMBIES chase the terrified SHEILA (20) around a barn. Despite running as fast as she can, she can't outrun the slow staggering movements of her decayed pursuers
THOMAS Bra-a-ain.....
Running along a wheat field, Sheila trips on a rock. She screams as she falls to the ground. Before she can get up, Thomas is on top of her.
THOMAS Bra-a-ain....
and he bites into her head.
Steve watches for a moment before turning to the wheat.
STEVE Gra-a-ain...
Steve staggers into the wheat field as Thomas rolls his eyes at him.
Question: Is it time to do away with the anonymity?
I would say so. I suppose it does facilitate more honest feedback but I think people around here tend to be more genuine than most and even if they weren't, I doubt they'd really step it up for the OWC since it's generally known which writers are entering (even if they say they're not).
Also, the OWC is huge now and is host to tons of repetition among styles, storylines, etc. Not to mention SS has grown significantly as well and frankly, I don't think people are as familiar with each other's styles as they used to be. So the whole guessing angle is moot at this point.
And of course, one wouldn't waste so much time reading fake scripts if they knew who wrote what from the getgo.
THOMAS and STEVE, two ZOMBIES chase the terrified SHEILA (20) around a barn. Despite running as fast as she can, she can't outrun the slow staggering movements of her decayed pursuers
THOMAS Bra-a-ain.....
Running along a wheat field, Sheila trips on a rock. She screams as she falls to the ground. Before she can get up, Thomas is on top of her.
THOMAS Bra-a-ain....
and he bites into her head.
Steve watches for a moment before turning to the wheat.
STEVE Gra-a-ain...
Steve staggers into the wheat field as Thomas rolls his eyes at him.
FINAL FADE OUT
Phil
Just spied this and it should be a commercial!!! Seriously!!!!
Would make an excellent commercial for a bread company!
I wanna echo James' sentiments here. I think the bigger this gets, the more the authors should be attached to their scripts from the get go. Still drop em out five at a time. Give us all time to read. then another batch. I dont think they'd be ignored because of who wrote them if you give them in small doses.
I also think there would be less pissers.
But, I fear not much will change on this.
The guessing game is not that fun IMO. Who cares. It's not a competition. There's only a few of you who really know each's writing style that well anyway. It's to see what each other di with the challenge. Personally, rather know who I'm talking to when I review. I rarely go back, as most of us, to the thread once I've read it.
I also agree that the anonymity should go. It was a bit of the fun back in the day when the guessing was part of the game. This time, there isn't even a "Who wrote what?" thread that usually popped up shortly after the scripts were posted. I think it has run its course. It might also help to prevent the pisstakes (*aaaaahhhhh!!!*) from being submitted. People are less likely to submit crap if they know they'll be id'd from the start.
I agree and then we can also see if the newcomers who are always welcome, read and comment. If they don't, then we don't have spend time reading theirs. Unless we want to of course.
Last OWC people knew I wrote Issues and Obsession right away. This time I tried to write something nobody would guess was me and it worked. It was a serious attempt however.
I agree and then we can also see if the newcomers who are always welcome, read and comment. If they don't, then we don't have spend time reading theirs. Unless we want to of course.
Last OWC people knew I wrote Issues and Obsession right away. This time I tried to write something nobody would guess was me and it worked. It was a serious attempt however.
Yeah, Ryan, when you right click on the script and go into document properties, it shows up. You have to erase all the info inside there once you convert it to a PDF.
OK everyone, I'm going to come clean here. Wolves at the Door is mine.
Sorry to mess around, but I just couldn't help myself. This is definitely a pisstake, and a great example of exactly how not to write a script. I tried to break every rule in the book and then some.
The big blocks of text and dialogue, the crazy descriptions, the goofy asides, the zany, make no sense plot, the over the top and meaningless V.O. by Christopher Lee, and of course the dialogue, capped by including "etc., etc.".
Hope some of you at least got a laugh...I know I sure did. Also hope some of you weren't sure whether or not it was a serious effort (sorry Coding and Sandra!).
I have to say that I've been literally laughing my as off ever since I started writing this. I had a dinner party last weekend and we were doing a little partying, if you know what I mean...I printed out this script, and then cut slices, holes, and the like in every page, and let my guests have a read. Their first reaction was, "Why the Hell is it all cut up?". I told them that I wanted it to look as bad as possible, just to get them in the proper state of mind. They were giggling wildly the rest of the night, and it turned out to be quite hilarious for all of us.
My apologies again. I hope no one holds it against me. It was my first pisstake I ever wrote. You won't be seeing anymore of these from me in the future.
Thanks for all the reads and comments. Some of them were very funny.
I was fairly certain you wrote Cannibals, as you seemed to be the only one who liked it. I had a sneaking suspicion Wolves was yours, but that black blob of revenge script last owc was so bad, I couldn't be sure if this was the same author. Well, good job on some bad, bad writing. Etcetera!
I have now read them all. As I said on FB, this to me was the worst OWC ever. I hope the next one will be better.
Without looking at all the entries and only going by which ones stuck in my memory the most, I would say that Dumb Animals was my favorite. There were other good ones, but that one stayed with me.
I wouldn't say it was "the worst one"...I'd just say it was very different.
I for one, had a frickin' blast with it.
The theme/genre, to me, was very uninteresting and VERY confining in its scope. It pretty much mandated a bunch of talking head scripts, and that's pretty much what it delivered. You know?
Pages: 
Author
May, 2010 OWC???
Logged
A cool strong guy with an unbelievably soft heart that you'd never know by his posts.
(( Accidentally really. 
Locked Board