I love Jeff, his reviews are great and I think he's a very good writer when he puts his mind to it but the reviews of this were consistently bad....for a good reason.

The characters were completely unrelatable and forgettable...I'd have to open the script to remember anything about any of them. That was because there were far too many, so all of them were underdeveloped. It was hard to even find a central character.

The central premise was very boring. The whole story was about a meal. Creatures you couldn't relate to, involved in zero stakes manoeuvres.

So, those are two ones right there.

The prose is OK technically (but full of the same mistakes he will trash an entire script for if he finds just one), but he gave away the ending in the middle of the story...so structurally it was very poor. It was very poor story-telling.

It's also a comedy round and was supposed to be funny...and it wasn't. There wasn't a moment that even raised a smile. Not one line of dialogue, which also makes the dialogue very poor.

I think it did well to get into the top ten tbh, I think both Tosher's Tale and Agent Eleven are better than it.

I wouldn't normally post something like this, but it's just to point out that people have different, subjective opinions on things and Jeff is far more brutal in his reviews, so he has to take it as well.  It was obvious to me that this one was not going to get near the top.  Almost everyone had the same problems with the script. You need to take a good percentage with you to place well.

Code For a sewer, it's pretty nice.

Show don't tell... screenwriting 101.

Code Animated cartoons play on each.

Good job you told us those cartoons are animated... how would we know otherwise?

Code In front of the TV's...

TVs.

Code ...old sofas and chairs rest on wooden planking, just above water level...

I'd hate to drop something walking along the street in New York, the drainage holes must be huge.

Code ...an old bullfrog jumps up on one of the TV's...

TVs.

Code ...waves his little frog arms...

What other types of arms would a bullfrog have? You only need to specify if his arms were different from what we'd expect.

Code CROAKER Who's got the remote, RIBBIT?

This reads as though he's asking somebody called RIBBIT who has the remote. The RIBBIT should come after the question as it is not actually a part of it.

Code A fluffy bunny holds up an old remote, turns off the TV's.

TVs. The above is also an incomplete sentence. Pretty sure I saw you bang on about this in the Payload thread. Yet here you are employing the same thing yourself. And why? Just so you don't have one of your dreaded orphans on the page.

Code (50 year old fourteen foot long alligator)

50-year-old, fourteen-foot alligator... The length goes without saying.

Code 15 year old

15-year-old

Code 6 year old

Code 5 year old

Don't you like hyphens?

Code The animals jump off, as Big Al takes his place on his throne, which is actually a discarded marble countertop.

The animals jump off as Big Al climbs onto his throne - a
discarded marble countertop.


That's the first half a page and I only have ten minutes left of freedom that I don't want to waste on reading any more. For somebody with such high technical standards when it comes to other people's work, this script is quite tragic.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I love Jeff, his reviews are great and I think he's a very good writer when he puts his mind to it but the reviews of this were consistently bad....for a good reason. The characters were completely unrelatable and forgettable...I'd have to open the script to remember anything about any of them. That was because there were far too many, so all of them were underdeveloped. It was hard to even find a central character. The central premise was very boring. The whole story was about a meal. Creatures you couldn't relate to, involved in zero stakes manoeuvres. So, those are two ones right there. The prose is OK technically (but full of the same mistakes he will trash an entire script for if he finds just one), but he gave away the ending in the middle of the story...so structurally it was very poor. It was very poor story-telling. It's also a comedy round and was supposed to be funny...and it wasn't. There wasn't a moment that even raised a smile. Not one line of dialogue, which also makes the dialogue very poor. I think it did well to get into the top ten tbh, I think both Tosher's Tale and Agent Eleven are better than it. I wouldn't normally post something like this, but it's just to point out that people have different, subjective opinions on things and Jeff is far more brutal in his reviews, so he has to take it as well.  It was obvious to me that this one was not going to get near the top.  Almost everyone had the same problems with the script. You need to take a good percentage with you to place well.

I agree with much of your point, and mentioned many of those things. 1's seems oddly extreme, however. I gave out very few 1's on any of these scripts, and no 5's. No character in any script was particularly well-drawn or memorable. Neither were the stories, though a few were cute and several showcased writing talent. I don't say this to be harsh...this was hard. But considering that most of the characters, stories or dialog didn't ring the bell(IMO), this one made a good effort.

As for Jeff being able to take it: yup. While I think this story maybe deserved a bit more love, that's not to say Jeff does.

It seems more the case to me that you're underestimating the other stories in comparison.

The problem is that this one didn't even get to rung one on the characters: Having a consistent POV that enabled you to relate to the story.

You might not have found other characters memorable, but they at least served a basic function. We didn't get to that level here.

Same with the story compared to almost all the others...no recognisable stakes.

Taken together, that was an absolute killer for the script...and the reviews testify to that. You sort of wanted to like it, but couldn't. You'd been given no one to care for and nothing to care about...that's kryptonite for any story.

Like you said, in some way it was among the best..great world building in particular, but in some ways it was among the worst...it didn't get the basics right. Hence it ended up mid-table.

Anyway, after all that I should point out, this, like all scripts, is only a re-write away from fixing all those problems.

Ultimately, that's all that matters.

I mentioned before your post, in reply to PK, that I would have scored this 2 on story. And I've mentioned in my original post the problems you list: no clear protagonist, lack of stakes related to the storyline. Again, 1 seems weirdly harsh. In most of the other story the stakes were clear but absurd(mine as well, so I'm not being unfair). I've also said this would not do as well as an OWC because of the story issue. So I don't think we're that far apart.

As far as character, it's hard to judge any of these. The characters here are colorful, not deep. Vignettes. But there's an effort to make them distinct and stand out. To give them voice. We don't understand their motives, but they clearly have motives. How do you feel about Dickens characters? They have been criticized by literary critics as two dimensional, as colorful cardboard cutouts. This is true, and yet we love them, or at least I do. Which for me shows that depth is only one way to create an interesting character. Distinct color is another way.

I am always grateful for your opinions, here as well. For me, this story highlights what Dave said: if your goal is to score well, and that's not always the goal, you need to have a strategy. A similar strategy would apply if the goal is to sell a spec script.

Some possible strategies:
- keep a low character count
- use a main character that might naturally draw sympathy right out of the gate, such as a child or some other kind of underdog that we care about or root for
- use an opening scene that brings us right into the story
- use an opening scene that allows the writer to showcase some style...in a way that will grab the reader

I'm sure there are many more.

The stories that do well in these usually have one or two characters(not counting unnamed characters, like passengers on a plane). Jeff's story was not designed to succeed. But it has other merits. I'm going to re-read the two you suggested. I won't comment, however, unless those comments are positive and different than my previous notes on them.

WOW!  Unreal.

I'll respond, but it probably won't be right away, as we have 3 grand kids over, a grand niece, and a grand nephew, and a 14 pound pork butt on the Kamado.

We're talking about you, Jeffrey, not to you!

The script is riddled with errors - format and grammar. Too many to really list. Just starting with the opening.  Let's take a look.

Quoted Text INT. LOWER MANHATTAN SEWER - LOUNGE - DAY NOTE - Entire script is animated. SUPER - July 3rd, Lower Manhattan For a sewer, it's pretty nice. Several old tube televisions sit on pipes against a wall. Animated cartoons play on each. In front of the TV's, old sofas and chairs rest on wooden planking, just above water level, with numerous RABBITS, RACCOONS, and MICE all watching and laughing. CROAKER, an old bullfrog jumps up on one of the TV's, waves his little frog arms over his head. CROAKER Who's got the remote, RIBBIT? Big Al wants our attention. A fluffy bunny holds up an old remote, turns off the TV's.

Quoted Text INT. LOWER MANHATTAN SEWER - LOUNGE - DAY NOTE - Entire script is animated. SUPER - July 3rd, Lower Manhattan

SUPER stands for ‘superimpose’ or ‘superimposition’. It is used to indicate writing that is supposed to appear on screen on top of the images. In this case the SUPER should be after the opening description of the sewer - not before it.

Also why waste space putting Lower Manhattan in the Header and the Super? And actually you don't need the thing at all.  Frenchy's dialogue referencing tomorrow's 4th of July feast already does the trick.

In terms of the header - what is a sewer lounge??  Don't throw something so uncommon out there because we are not going to understand it anyway until we read your description. It's like having a header that says: INT.  FACTORY - LIVING ROOM - DAY.  At a minimum, at least call it a MAKESHIFT LOUNGE

Quoted Text For a sewer, it's pretty nice. Several old tube televisions sit on pipes against a wall. Animated cartoons play on each.

No need for "for a sewer" - already in your header.  Maybe just Oddly nice.  Do we really need "tube". If we do, it should be tube-televisions. Do we really need animated and cartoons?

Quoted Text In front of the TV's, old sofas and chairs rest on wooden planking, just above water level, with numerous RABBITS, RACCOONS, and MICE all watching and laughing.

TVs.  

Flip the order for better clarity. e.g.,

RABBITS, RACCOONS, and MICE sit on old sofas, laughing as they watch the cartoons.

Quoted Text CROAKER, an old bullfrog jumps up on one of the TV's, waves his little frog arms over his head.

TVs

Quoted Text CROAKER Who's got the remote, RIBBIT? Big Al wants our attention. A fluffy bunny holds up an old remote, turns off the TV's.

Very awkward and confusing as it often as when you reference a character in dialogue that has not been intro'd yet.   Better as:

CROAKER
Who's got the remote? Big
Al wants our attention.

RIBBIT, a fluffy bunny holds up an old remote, turns off the TVs.

So, why do I mention all of the above errors? Normally I would not go into that level of detail or nit picky for a script that is written in three days. I expect there will be some errors and I don't view these exercises so much as correcting scripts as I do rating them. But I'm angry. Last night I looked at Paradise Airlines and came across Jeff's review:

Quoted Text I'm going to try and not give detailed feedback, as I know peeps are pissed, and this is another one that look like it was flashed fried. The writing is poor throughout, mistakes of every kind, on every page.  Looks like a rush job, and even if it was, it's not good. Why don't we have any characters intro'd?  How can we care if there's no one to root for? I see a semblance of a story here, but after reading others' feedback, they didn't get it, or maybe there's nothing to get?  It's weak, at best. Sure, it';s horror, on a plane, and the use the sanitizer is there, but very different, as isn't hand sanitizer a liquid? No dialogue, no characters, so if I could vote, you wouldn't do very well.  Just a lazy-arse effort, sorry to say.

Lazy-arse effort - mistakes of every kind - rush job. All over-the-top insults, confusing brutal honestly with brutality.  So, in my view - had Jeff read this script (New York) written by someone else he would have skewered it and the writer. Might have even been out on page 1 if it was a ten page challenge with something akin to " if there are this many errors in the opening I'm sure the rest is the same - I can't go on." Long winded way of saying - you got to play in the sandbox you picked. If you are going to weight these things as important in other scripts - weight them important in yours.

Now, in terms of Jeff's actual script - not the best one I read, but it has some appeal. A decent effort given the constraints of the parameter and the short time to complete. The problems are:

Way too many characters - re-reading was a must to completely understand. And there are ways to help the reader here if they are a must. Help us out with the character names. e.g., rather than FRENCHY - call the character FRENCHY THE SKUNK.  That way I don't have to remember what Frenchy was when I see the dialogue blocks later - do that as much as it makes sense. i.e., you probably don't need CROAKER THE FROG - since CROAKER jars my memory.  You probably do need LEO THE SNAKE.

Points of unneeded confusion. Especially this:

Quoted Text Zelda scoops out loads of red, yellow, and orange ghost peppers from a bin, as tiny, wispy ghosts twist in the air.

I was totally and completely lost when I read this.  Googled Ghost Peppers and found out what they were - go with RED-HOT SPICY PEPPERS - or something like that. And what is with the wispy ghosts twisting in the air - it made it more confusing.  Did you include of because of ghost peppers?? Regardless - not needed a a real pace derailment for your readers.

This:

Quoted Text BIG AL Your Mother would roll over in her watery grave if she knew what you've become. You're looking a little hot under the collar, Son. Chester backs away, literally fuming. CHESTER Ah, Dad...really?

Was a disappointment for me. Chester should be saying something like - just wait until Thanksgiving!

And it ends with a fart. Ugh.

So I'm left with some clever conceived characters, albeit far too  many to digest in five pages in a relatively cute story without clear stakes. Yes - there is a dinner competition - but I don't have a clue is to why or why the two combatants - Big Al and Chester are competing with each other.  Clearing up those two items would make this a better story.

Jeff:

1) Hope the notes help.

2) Please - try to be less cruel to other writers. You can be honest without being brutal.  

I get what you're doing, Dave, and it's fair. Might even call it karma.

I've referenced a few times your insightful comment from days ago about having a strategy to win these. A script like this is a great example to apply that. And I think this kind of lesson applies more broadly to the selling of spec scripts by
unestablished writers. A challenge story, or a spec script, really suffers if it's not designed to be readable.

In this script, the high character count really works against that.

There were other problems too: uncompelling storyline about a meal, lack of central character, etc. But all of these challenge stories were lacking(understandable with the limitations).

I think the high character count and level of detail to absorb took readers out of the story. It did me. I had to read twice. I only stayed with it because the work seemed well-crafted for the most part.

Bloody hell, Jeff. You've woken the Kraken, here.

Quoted from leitskev I think the high character count and level of detail to absorb took readers out of the story. It did me. I had to read twice. I only stayed with it because the work seemed well-crafted for the most part.

Yes - I had to read it twice as well.

Sometimes we know what is in our head so it is difficult to see what won't be clear in other people's heads (hope that makes sense).

Quoted from eldave1 Yes - I had to read it twice as well. Sometimes we know what is in our head so it is difficult to see what won't be clear in other people's heads (hope that makes sense).

For me it's the handicap of experiencing story through script instead of through film or a novel/short story. We want to be brought into a scene quickly. In a film, our mind can quickly absorb the details. In a script, we have to read them. In a novel, the writer can bring us along at whatever pace is needed when it comes to feeding us information.

Quoted from leitskev For me it's the handicap of experiencing story through script instead of through film or a novel/short story. We want to be brought into a scene quickly. In a film, our mind can quickly absorb the details. In a script, we have to read them. In a novel, the writer can bring us along at whatever pace is needed when it comes to feeding us information.

Good point.

Ha...this is quite entertaining.  I am going to try to start responding, but it's the weekend and I'm busy.

Great stuff, though. I frickin' love it!!!