SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is January 22nd, 2020, 10:31pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
If you wish to join this discussion board, please send me a message. Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Scripts Studios are posting for 2019 - 2020 award consideration
The January One Week Challenge is on

Scripts due to SimplyScripts.com/OWC



Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production | Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
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.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    One Week Challenge    April, 2009 One Week Challenge  ›  OWC - Feedback on the Feedback
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    OWC - Feedback on the Feedback  (currently 16426 views)
michel
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 5:46pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
France
Posts
1236
Posts Per Day
0.25

Quoted from Angry Bear
Just an observation...

32 scripts were entered, but the average number of reviews seem to be near 10 or 11 with some getting a lot more, but not necessarily more reviews, just banter. That also includes some people reading that did not enter even enter.

Quite different from previous OWC's.  Just MHO of course...


Looks my motivation run back tonight (it's 00;37 PM) I understand why some ahave give up.  that's why I do my best to slowly review before MKIA comes around. Sometimes we dojn't need to close our eyes and pretend nothing happen. I'm not sure I will be here , or at least run, if things are not slow donnw (soory for the typos, regarding my sleeping pill)

MIchel


Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 225 - 267
michel
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 5:50pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
France
Posts
1236
Posts Per Day
0.25
How come certain on the reviews appear not in the recent posts section?


Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 226 - 267
The boy who could fly
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 9:50pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
British Columbia, Canada
Posts
1444
Posts Per Day
0.28
Okay...I guess it's confession time.  I wrote "Love is all you need".  It was kind of an experiment.  Would a script that had no thought or effort into it get more reads than one that did based on page count?...and the answer...as I guessed... was yes.  I wrote it in like 2 min drunker than shit at the time of its announcement and never looked back, but I knew when I did this it would get the most comments....kinda sad.  There are a few good ones here that don't have even half the reads because they are 12 pages long, most people seem to be into page count than quality.  I wasn't gonna ever admit to writing this but when I saw I got 3 times as many reads as most others I  figured I'd fess up, I  didnt even submit this with my name on it, but 31 replies...Jesus Christ, I wasn't expecting that with 30 or so entries.  There are some good ones in this entry and I hope they get the same amount of reads.  Never go by page count is my best suggestion, chances are if its less than 2 pages the writer didn't really give a shit, my script is proof.


Logged
Private Message Windows Live Messenger Reply: 227 - 267
steven8
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 10:08pm Report to Moderator
Regular


You're never alone...

Location
Barberton, OH
Posts
823
Posts Per Day
0.22

Quoted from Angry Bear
Cheers dude!

I think you proved a sad point!


Btw, I read some good ones too, but I only read those with the fewest reads...


Did you mean views, or replies?  If you meant replies, you must have read mine, as it was near the bottom on views, and tied with the others at 10 for the lowest in replies, yet you did not review mine.  

Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 228 - 267
steven8
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 10:33pm Report to Moderator
Regular


You're never alone...

Location
Barberton, OH
Posts
823
Posts Per Day
0.22

Quoted from Angry Bear
I picked the ones I read by looking at replies. I chose those with the lowest reviews/comments. Just trying to be helpful/supportive...


However, the tone of some newbies complaining about comments turned me off. I quit reading. I will read more once the writers are revealed. Even those who caused a ruckus if they are regular contributors to the site.  


Oh shiite!  My sarcastic post came off as whiny.  Sorry 'bout that!  

Everyone is free to read and review what they wish.  I certainly haven't got them all.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 229 - 267
George Willson
Posted: April 16th, 2009, 11:10pm Report to Moderator
Moderator


Doctor who? Yes, quite right.

Location
Broken Arrow
Posts
4023
Posts Per Day
0.73

Okay...I guess it's confession time.  I wrote "Love is all you need".  It was kind of an experiment.  Would a script that had no thought or effort into it get more reads than one that did based on page count?...and the answer...as I guessed... was yes.  


The other problem with doing this is that it takes away legitimacy from the others doing the exercise. Sure, it's fine doing crap like that for fun, but what happens to someone who didn't participate and was genuinely curious about the kind of scripts that we came up with. He read this one and Memories and said, "wow, these people really suck in a week."

It's sort of akin to the second review on a script slamming the hell out of it. People bandwagon on that review and it takes about six more before its pulled out of the hole. People start with a random script, and it's total crap, and so their impression throughout is that the scripts are crap until they've hopefully read enough decent ones in a row to garner a better opinion for number fifteen (but apologies to 3-14, that didn't suck, but he also didn't give half a at's ass about because "all these suck").

Point is, yes, we're here to hve fun, but we're also here to get ahead in an impossible business. If this was the contest that Phil based the original idea on, would you have paid $45 to turn in "Love Is All You Need"? I suspect not, which is the reason contests have entry fees. They have a fee because they know that people serious enough to pay $45 will be serious enough to try and write a decent script.

So my suggestion here is to consider whether you'd pay money to enter your submission in a contest before submitting it. Would you risk your entire career on your little experiment? That's kind of like the question, "could you cut a page out of this script if I paid you $10,000?" The answer is rather obvious.

I liked what I submitted. I researched it and worked on it and felt I'd done something at least decent. I wasn't joking around at all. Will I ever submit it to be shot or anything? No, I doubt it. But I still put forth my best effort to be clever while doing it. It's a shame my best effort was judged through the filter of your worst. It basically degrades the value of the exercise for those who were curious and didn't participate (this time).

I won't be able to read them all before the name hit either, but I'll make sure I read the regulars if I haven't hit them yet (or at least those who discussed here and, of course, I'll read anyone's who read mine)

EDIT: Okay, it isn't as bad as The script that must not be named, but it's close. You'll never achieve that never of notoriety. Hey, that writer tried. They failed miserably, but they probably tried...and left their ass shining in the moonlight.


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 230 - 267
mcornetto
Posted: April 17th, 2009, 12:40am Report to Moderator
Guest User



I don't know. I always thought the OWC was about experimenting.  The first one an experiment to see if I could write a short in a week.  The next one an experiment to see if I could follow the brief.  Then next one an experiment to see just how far I could push my script. The next one an experiment...I don't think that the experimenting ever ends and I think if it did I wouldn't want to be part of the OWC.

I think all the scripts this time were within the spirit of the OWC, even that All you need is love one.  Sometimes you just have to vote for Mickey Mouse.

  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 231 - 267
Colkurtz8
Posted: April 17th, 2009, 5:03am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
--> Over There
Posts
1705
Posts Per Day
0.41
Amid all the harsh criticism and wounded pride I've seen on the OWC boards I'm very impressed with the entries I 've read. Granted I've only looked at 5 so far I think the quality has been quite good, given the confined parameters regarding subject matter and time.

I've only been a member since September and I don't remember the October one so this is my first time in the SS community properly during one of these contests. The anonymity of the entries inevitably gives rise to some scathing, unabashed remarks but thats to be expected. I didn't enter myself but I'm really enjoying what people are able to come up with in such a short space of time, its a credit to everyone who submitted.

But people should be constantly reminding themselves of this when going to read them as it is a rather tough asssignment to begin with. I'm all for judging on merit and giving nothing less then your honest opinion,  that but try and keep it in mind the nature of the contest and its difficulty.

Well done to everyone who entered, and long may the entries I read from now on be as good as the ones hitherto.



OWC entries I've read thus far:

Edmund
Through The Looking Glass
House Of Usher
Guilt
Sweetie



Revision History (2 edits; 1 reasons shown)
Colkurtz8  -  April 17th, 2009, 5:49am
Crossing i's and dotting t's...er I mean--
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 232 - 267
Old Time Wesley
Posted: April 17th, 2009, 6:21am Report to Moderator
Old Timer


Location
Ontario, Canada
Posts
3435
Posts Per Day
0.56

Would a script that had no thought or effort into it get more reads than one that did based on page count?...and the answer...as I guessed... was yes.


Just look at the board titled "Short" and every other thread surrounding it and the point is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If you already knew the answer what did you prove?


Practice safe lunch: Use a condiment.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 233 - 267
Shelton
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 11:54am Report to Moderator
Moderator



Location
Chicago
Posts
3611
Posts Per Day
0.69

Quoted from bert


Brian, when the names of the authors are revealed, I encourage everyone to take note of the authors who had time to submit an entry but found no time to read so much as one submission.

Then -- never, ever read anything submitted by these OWC parasites.

You get some every time, and they always tick me off.  This time, looks like you got quite a few.


And our first winner, the author of Picnic0410.

*Applause, Applause*



Shelton's Website

Shelton's IMDb Profile

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out with nothing but a bunch of blank paper." - Steve Martin
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM Reply: 234 - 267
Colkurtz8
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 11:59am Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
--> Over There
Posts
1705
Posts Per Day
0.41
Pia

"Now when the writers have been revealed, I guess I've got some reading to do."

-- I'm just curious as to why you are waiting for this to happen before reading?

Do you not feel its better to go in on the blind side, thus your review won't be biased based on the particular writer attached. I'm not saying that you do this, but we all have writers on here that we prefer over others and whether we realize it or not it does have an influence over how we review a certain script from a certain writer.

I was under the impression this was the whole point of the OWC; Honest, impartial critique.

Col.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 235 - 267
Higgonaitor
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 12:01pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
(40.717261, -73.600087)
Posts
1167
Posts Per Day
0.21
Pia doesn't want to read the scripts of those who haven't reviewed any other scripts.  It has nothing to do with being impartial.

I think I may do the same.


NEW!Everquenching Lemonade:Thirsty for a comedy short?
And the Rest!

Watch Squirt! (My web-series!)
Logged
Site Private Message AIM Reply: 236 - 267
michel
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 12:03pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
France
Posts
1236
Posts Per Day
0.25
I don't know if the question has been asked, but when will the writers be revealed?


Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 237 - 267
Shelton
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 12:09pm Report to Moderator
Moderator



Location
Chicago
Posts
3611
Posts Per Day
0.69

Quoted from michel
I don't know if the question has been asked, but when will the writers be revealed?


http://www.simplyscripts.com/unpro_short_exercise_04_09.html


Shelton's Website

Shelton's IMDb Profile

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out with nothing but a bunch of blank paper." - Steve Martin
Logged Offline
Site Private Message AIM Reply: 238 - 267
michel
Posted: April 18th, 2009, 12:12pm Report to Moderator
Old Timer



Location
France
Posts
1236
Posts Per Day
0.25
Thanks Mike


Logged
Site Private Message Reply: 239 - 267
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    April, 2009 One Week Challenge  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006