Quoted from Neighbour On a lot of the scripts I've been reading or glancing at, I've seen a few reviewers talk about "orphans" consistently. Can someone please give me an example of what one is, and maybe show how to correct it? I would like to avoid doing this myself in future writing.

An orphan is a line of either or action or dialogue that only consists of a single word that'd look something like
this.

Seemingly harmless but if there's a lot of them, they end up wasting valuable space on the page and potentially upping your page count or just general length of your script. Also, to me, they just look plain sloppy.

Orphans occur when words hit some kind of margin and get tossed onto a new line. Fixing them entails rewriting the sentence somehow to make it so that doesn't happen. It takes a little figuring but it's so easy, often requiring the removal of a single word or letter to make it work, which is why I personally don't take them lightly. I think if you have to sacrifice a solid line of action or dialogue that wouldn't work as well otherwise, you might consider leaving a given orphan but I think this should be done sparingly and with good judgment. I think orphans overall should be kept to an absolute minimum however I would generally shoot to have absolutely zero given how easy they are to fix.

Quoted from James McClung An orphan is a line of either or action or dialogue that only consists of a single word that'd look something like this. Seemingly harmless but if there's a lot of them, they end up wasting valuable space on the page and potentially upping your page count or just general length of your script. Also, to me, they just look plain sloppy. Orphans occur when words hit some kind of margin and get tossed onto a new line. Fixing them entails rewriting the sentence somehow to make it so that doesn't happen. It takes a little figuring but it's so easy, often requiring the removal of a single word or letter to make it work, which is why I personally don't take them lightly. I think if you have to sacrifice a solid line of action or dialogue that wouldn't work as well otherwise, you might consider leaving a given orphan but I think this should be done sparingly and with good judgment. I think orphans overall should be kept to an absolute minimum however I would generally shoot to have absolutely zero given how easy they are to fix.

Thank you for explaining! I understand it now for sure. At first I thought an orphan was like a one word sentence, since I see a lot of that in action paragraphs in scripts. But now I get it and I agree they should be cleaned up as it would look a lot more professional and cleanly written!

Quoted from RadioShea89 Though the explanations in favor of the grading system are worthy, I tend to agree with LC that this can sway a person's initial impression either more in favor or against the merits of a script. I am reading through several scripts, and then writing my reviews in Word to be posted later. After I've written the review in Word, only then do I read the reviews to see other folks thoughts. It may cause some redundancy in the reviews, but I feel it's more fair to the author. If I read Dreamscape's reviews before writing my own thoughts, I'm not sure I'd ever see good in ANY script. No offense, Dreamscape, but man you are rough. I think anyone who went through the trouble of creating a story deserves a complete read-through - there might be a gem you missed on page 5, because you clicked out of the script on page 3 to start your review. Personally I don't think it's fair to even review something that hasn't been given complete consideration. That being said, Dreamscape, a couple of years ago you lambasted one of my scripts and made me wonder if I should even be writing. It did humble me though and taught me to take the craft of screenwriting even more seriously. This fact lead to me landing a script assignment for a 30 minute short. The film ultimately won a Gold Remi award at the WorldFest Houston Film Festival this past spring. So glad my self-esteem didn't take too much of a wallop or I never would have seen my work on the big screen. Dreamscape was pretty rough on my OWC too, (but at least it seems he finished the script, so that's an improvement in my favor!), so there's hope out there for those of you getting killed on your reviews. Good luck!

I completely agree with these comments.  If you took everything serious, you may never have won that competition.  I'm pleased to hear you won too!  I'm sure if it wasn't so rough in the beginning and more welcoming, you'd have participated more often and not feel like you're on the outside looking in.  Jeff has been rough for a very long time.  I think the best practice is to just ignore it.  

For all we want is helpful reminders, tips, pointers, ideas for story progression, whatever.  When a script is met with negativity without so much of a positive line, then that's bad in my book.  And saying lines like well done for taking part, for completing script, is just wasted words, that doesn't curtail a bad/rough review.

There is no point in leaving a review to say you've not read the script.

There's no point is saying that it was that bad you couldn't even get past the first page.

If you've you're not going to read it, what's the point in leaving a review.

And if you read the script, don't just leave bad comments, copy & paste text from the script and go, look, this text you wrote, it's bad.  Doesn't help anyone.  Back up any reasons for your points with perhaps helpful pointers...  

Who knows, the next person that could win a competition might not feel so alienated and stay on the site for longer, as opposed to not to participate any further, not knowing what might have been because of their first ever attempt at writing a script or even second attempt...

Also agree with LC.  Doesn't feel like the spirit of the competition when the competition is about taking part, not where you'd end up if there was a ranking system.

I don't disagree with being rough or any one's reviewing style but I have read a few scripts that got a lot better as they progressed.

Also, sometimes a really harsh comment can ruin a person's whole day or week, maybe even make them feel depressed or break their heart.

But here's the thing: I'm assuming that's the way show business is sometimes. Harsh. So people would do well by getting used to it.

I got some harsh reviews, but I was expecting that. I'm still completely new to screenwriting and I hope to take in something negative, and throw back a positive later down the road. I'm sure that's what they hope too.

...unless a person's intention is completely malicious, and then that just REALLY bothers me, as it would anyone.

EDIT:/// Also I was lazy with my script and did not put nearly enough effort into it. I knew it was shit when I sent it in. But you know what? Harsh comments will make sure that I don't do that again next time. That before submitting anything I should put a lot of effort into it.

Quoted from James McClung An orphan is a line of either or action or dialogue that only consists of a single word that'd look something like this.

Unbelievable.  So that's an orphan.  As many reviews as I've read from Dreamscale I should've known this by now. I always thought an orphan was something else.

Quoted from jayrex I completely agree with these comments.

Thanks for understanding my point, Jayrex. I don't think negative comments do us any good unless they are backed up with at least one example from the script. Only THEN do I consider that constructive criticism, which I think anyone worthy of being called a "writer" would actually appreciate.

I understand about orphans, but I consider orphans to be one of those structural issues you clean up in later drafts. I'm not convinced it's fair to glance through a script and scream "orphans" on a challenge in which you only had one week to drum up memorable characters and a coherent plot.

Point out that there are orphans, sure. But in a challenge such as this, how about paying more attention to the "meat" of the story and MAJOR structural flaws?

Quoted from KevinLenihan Ray, all of that would be true...if...these were features. And if...these were pro readers. Neither applies. If someone stops reading my feature, I ALWAYS want to know what page. I've asked that question many times. I thank the reader for getting to where he did, and I ask where he stopped and why. But this is the OWC thread. We are talking about OWCs being reviewed by amateurs, not features being sifted through for possible production material. Apples to oranges, sir. A script written in 7 days is not expected to be perfect....a feature sent to a studio IS expected to be highly polished. And the OWC is a prid quo affair. You read others and expect others to read yours. If the very first review says "stopped after page 1", it discourages other readers from reading. Why should that writer read others scripts then? And these are NOT pro readers here, though there is really no such thing. I've seen people put down scripts because the Fade In was on the "wrong" side. I've seen people stop because they don't like bold slugs or because they don't believe in flashbacks or wrylies or orphans. Paid studio readers DO NOT put down scripts for those reasons. Ray, your comments are perfectly relevant for a feature posted here. They are perfectly irrelevant for an OWC script. And I have seen some of the scripts where this has happened, and they are written and formatted fine...they just don't happen to match up with the pet peeves of the reviewer. Someone shouldn't bring pet peeves to this, especially in matters that have nothing to do with story or competence, but rather were the choice of the writer. Pro readers don't bring peeves like that. They do their job.

Totally on the same page, Kevin. Thanks for posting.

I can honestly say that Jeff's or anyone' else's review or page 2 shutdown doesn't influence me residing a particular script. If anything I will crack the script to have a look.

I'll be honest here too and say that I have read a number of scripts in this OWC but haven't left any comments because they were pretty tough on the eye. I didn't see the point when other reviews have pointed out the problems.

Too many of the budgets to actually film these in live action are monstrous.
Guilty myself.

Do you guys realize how easy it is to fabricate out of the clear blue sky all sorts of wacky crazy stories - and - how hard it is to actually fund these things through KickStarter or IndieGoGo?
http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/short%20film?ref=sidebar
http://www.indiegogo.com/proje.....er_quick=popular_all

Are you guys writing for fine literature or to actually get produced?

(Almost) No one makes money off shorts.
These guys do:
http://www.statsheep.com/smosh
http://www.statsheep.com/nigahiga
http://www.statsheep.com/freddiew

But all this cast of dozens in elaborate locations is just... dumbfounding.

On top of that I'm reading too much fantasy, not enough horror.

Furthermore, I guess I completely misinterpreted

Quoted from Don Topic: Modern Witches (or Warlocks) Genre: Horror

as NOT meaning "Ye olde witches of Salem and medieval tymes" in a modern setting.

Whatevs.

Quoted from RayW you anxious nubes gotta quit outting yourselves a few days into this.

I hope it's understood why I outted myself.  I didn't want to take reads from people who had finished theirs. I'm going to assume you weren't labeling me a nube since this is my 6th OWC.    

Hey! Greetings to all members. I write screenplays for 6 years until now.  By exploring web in case of screenwriting, for that time, I can say, you all are a part of one of the very best sites.  I've been a silent reader for a long time. A few years, I think.

To be honest, I don't know where this membership will go, because I realized, as non-native speaker, that I will not be able to write/transport the pictures in the way I want to present them to readers/viewers. So I will not make a separated introduction-thread or hello- thread whatever.

With submitting a script for OWC I think it's also on me to give some feedback on scripts.
I don't think I get reviewed them all, I'll try, and I start now by random choice.

I will not use much help of dict this time, because of the quantity. So please refer to the content and try to read over the form if you want to get my opinion.

I'm getting a little bit long now, but want to say some last things referring to my reviews: I will talk about pictures, images, impressions, shots, concept, about film,

nothing about the writing, writers style, and I also try to avoid commenting on the dialogue, due to the fact I can't qualitatively.
I try to reflect the problems I had myself with my script, regarding to language and expression; will read through, to get even the core of works with similar problems.

Here we go.

Mosby

Maybe for 2014: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/15-horror-movies-offered-bang-649755

Maybe I'll get back to this article and compare those revenues to IMDB viewer ratings.
I expect the ratings to be relatively low indicating that marketing and promotion are considerably more important than content. Not to burst your creative bubbles or anything.

The Conjuring Ratings: 7.6/10 from 101,798 users
Budget: $20 million vs. Revenue: $297.4 million

Paranormal Activity 3: 5.9/10 from 56,045 users
Budget: $5 million vs. Revenue: $207 million

Paranormal Activity: 6.3/10 from 137,394 users
Budget: $15,000 vs. Revenue: $193.4 million

Paranormal Activity 2: 5.6/10 from 59,622 users
Budget: $3 million vs. Revenue: $177.5 million

Mama: 6.3/10 from 67,243 users
Budget: $15 million vs. Revenue: $146.4 million

Paranormal Activity 4: 4.4/10 from 32,179 users
Budget: $5 million vs. Revenue: $140.8 million

Saw 3D: 5.5/10 from 47,353 users
Budget: $20 million vs. Revenue: $136.2 million

The Woman in Black: 6.4/10 from 92,453 users
Budget: $15 million vs. Revenue: $127.7 million

The Devil Inside: 4.1/10 from 24,621 users
Budget: $1 million vs. Revenue: $101.4 million

Evil Dead: 6.5/10 from 72,697 users
Budget: $17 million vs. Revenue: $97.5 million

Insidious: 6.7/10 from 107,031 users
Budget: $1.5 million vs. Revenue: $97 million

Insidious Chapter 2: 7.0/10 from 15,062 users
Budget: $5 million vs Revenue: $87.3 million

The Purge: 5.5/10 from 41,925 users
Budget: $3 million vs. Revenue: $87.1 million

Sinister: 6.7/10 from 71,307 users
Budget: $3 million vs Revenue: $77.7 million

The Last Exorcism: 5.6/10 from 32,109 users
Budget: $1.8 million vs. Revenue: $67.7 million


Marketing is more important than product, FYI.

I'm going to offer some friendly opinion, advice I have offered before...people can make up their own minds. I don't have time for a big argument over it, but feel free to chip in.

A couple of years ago I posted a link to the Scriptshadow blog because at the time, if you got on his mailing list, he would send out 5 or 6 pro scripts a week.

Writers need to read pro scripts. Current pro level spec scripts.

Carson no longer sends them out, so people are on their own. But start with this: find the black list scripts from each year, and get the scripts Carson reviews on his blog.

Now, someone is going to insist that just because a script is pro means nothing. Maybe, for example, the writer married into the Weinstein family, or maybe just got lucky with a killer idea. OK, that happens.

But most of these scripts are pro for a reason. Don't doubt that. Read as many as you can.

You've heard a lot here about "unfilmables" and asides, and about "proper" slugs, and about "novelistic" description, and even about using "we" or "us" in action lines. And also, of course, about passive verb use.

And it's important to learn all that stuff, don't get me wrong. But then it's important to read pro scripts and see the difference between rules and rules of thumb. When you see a pro writer bend a rule, take a close look, and you can usually see why. It's not because the pro doesn't understand the rule.  It's because he has chosen the most effective way to convey the story to someone who might be interested in turning his script into a movie.

Each writer develops his own way of doing it. That's part of his voice. But if you pick up 20 pro scripts, you will not find a single one that does not bend the rules in some ways. Just think about that for a moment.

And if you are a newer writer, and a veteran amateur writer insists you conform to these "rules" in an inflexible way, ask them politely...politely...to suggest a pro script that is a good model for the rules they advocate so strenously. If they cannot suggest a single pro spec script that conforms to the type of screenwriting they insist is "correct", doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't it?

Hey Ray, wasn't the budget for The Purge $3 million, not $5? Think HR got that one wrong.

Of course, that just makes the profit margin that much more impressive. Is it any wonder so many prods are trying to copy the Blumhouse model now? Most of the movies in this list are theirs.

Quoted from KevinLenihan If they cannot suggest a single pro spec script that conforms to the type of screenwriting they insist is "correct", doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't it?

Yessir.
It means you can lead a young bull to a herd but you can't make them understand what to do with the cows.

I agree that "insisting" on much of anything beyond basic formatting is a bit quixotic
I also think pro-amatures can only point the running nubes in a GD hurry in the right direction then let them fend for themselves while the pro-ams walk down to the valley to service all them cows.

Take it. Leave it.
Conform, or don't. Don't matter to me.
I got plenty of screenplay options to select from to produce.

It's a lot like dating: Shower. Shave. Brush teeth. Brush hair. Wear clean clothes. Have something more interesting to say than "I like your boobs."

If she can't get past the general dishevelment and sophomoric proclamations then you're not even really competing.

"But it what's on the INSIDE that counts!"
Oh, grow up.
There's fifty other jokers in line behind you and they all want a crack at my boobs.
Next!

Likewise:
"But it what's on the INSIDE of my screenplay that counts!"
Oh, grow up.
There's fifty other screenwriters in line behind you and they all want a crack at my financing.
Next!

Quoted from ReneC Hey Ray, wasn't the budget for The Purge $3 million, not $5? Think HR got that one wrong.

Yessir! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2184339/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus

Quoted Text Is it any wonder so many prods are trying to copy the Blumhouse model now? Most of the movies in this list are theirs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blumhouse_Productions
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0098315/

That wiki "model description" is a bit weak, but I certainly do appreciate the general idea!