Underneath The Streets Of New York by Anonymous8 - Francesca and her pals just want to enjoy their July 4th feast, but Chester and the pack have other plans. - Short, Comedy, Animated

Hi writer,

Quoted Text NOTE - Entire script is animated.

No need for this in the script, it’s a waste of valuable space. It may also be clear from the content that it's better suited for animation. Also you tell us it's animation in the genre section.

Quoted Text Who's got the remote, RIBBIT?

Intro characters in caps when they first appear on screen, not in dialogue.

Quoted Text BIG AL (50 year old fourteen foot long alligator) floats in, cigar in his mouth, with ZSA ZSA (15 year old white Persian cat), FRANCESCA (6 year old white Persian cat), and FRENCHY (5 year old skunk) all on his back.

While the ages give us a sense of what they may look like, I think it would be better if you give us a visual rather than an age and leave the visual up to the reader.

Quoted Text FRENCHY I'll make a fragrant stew, or a tantalizing casserole, or maybe-

Use an em dash (--) for interrupted dialogue. Maybe personal preference, but that is actually one of its uses.

Quoted Text FRANCESCA I need you, too. Change of plans for tomorrow morning. Instead of the ribs and veggies, I need you to stuff these ghost peppers into some meat scraps, but mark the bags as planned. Then, thirty minutes later, I'll be here for the real stuff, OK?

This is giving the catch away, would be better if it was done as a reveal.

Quoted Text As the food leaves the bags, so do the tiny, wispy ghosts, who float above, smiles on their faces.

Ghosts?

And done. I think you tried to get a fair bit into the 5 pages.

Nice touch choosing animation, I saw basically everything you wanted me to see.

I can’t say I found it funny, but I see the attempts at humour so I'm calling it a comedy. The whistle isn’t really that important to the story but it's there.

The writing was okay and the dialogue works for what it is.

It was a damn tough challenge, congrats on getting an entry in.

All the best.

Ooh, another entry with The Rat Pack...

I liked the singing of New York, New York - funny. I also commend you for all the work you clearly put in this.

Unfortunately imho there was just so much going on I started to scan a bit.

Less (characters) is more I think.
Admirable effort.

I enjoyed your attempts at world building. It definitely didn't feel a million miles away from a professional animated world.

For me the world you had created was so epic and filled with so many characters, that the central story...about one meal...really fell flat in comparison.

I think a bigger story, with one central character looking to make his way in this weird world and out into the bright lights of the world would be a better fit than what we have here.

It’s okay.  The humour wasn’t enough for me to really enjoy.  I think a child would like it more.  The use of the whistle was good here.  The overall story was okay.  A bit of an adventure.

This was a pretty imaginative story. Just wasn't very funny. Seems like it's more aimed at young children.

Clean writing for the most part, though I did get a little lost towards the end. Guessing you ran out of pages and had to cram a lot into the final pages.

The whistle didn't really have a big part. Even though I didn't find it particularly funny, I can still see the attempts at humor.

Kudos for writing a story that's not completely disgusting. Lol

This was certainly an interesting and entertaining take on the challenge.

But it felt more like it was aimed at kids and played more like Disney TV - no bad thing, but not really in the comedy genre.

Whistle was there more or less and certainly set mostly in the sewer.

Good effort.

Animated...OK, let's see what we've got...

I've been waiting for an alligator, and here he is...and a cigar smoking alligator at that.  HA!

Zsa Zsa Gabore, no doubt?  And we have some cockroaches, which I expected in almost every entry.

So far, so good.  It's funny, and comes off like so many of those animated movies with animals.  I like the attention to detail and the "ghosts" flying above the chilies.

HA - Franky singing Old Blue Eyes.  Funny.

And Frenchy "skunks" everyone.  Nice.

Listen, I like it...alot.  It's funny, it's well written and either from a New Yorker or well researched.  I don't think I saw a single cuss word, which is weird, but kind of refreshing.

Story - Yep, it's entertaining.

Characters - Very strong, unique, and even memorable.

Dialogue - Again, strong and memorable.

Prose - Can't complain.

Criteria - Nailed it, but the whistle was a little "light"

"For a sewer, it's pretty nice." Good open.

Wow. I can't believe you got that many characters, plus a story, and a bit of a twist into 5 pages.  Major kudos for that.

And, since they're animals, I wasn't lost. I don't know how you did it.

The story was pretty straight line. But, since it's animated, I'd expect it to be. You could have hidden the "twist" a bit, rather than tell us straight out what her plan was. Even if this is aimed at children, they'd be bright enough to follow a simple twist.

Nice effort.

Hello writer

Quoted Text Animated cartoons play on each.

Is there any other type of cartoon on TV other than animated?

Quoted Text ...RIBBIT?

I don't get this, is there a character called Ribbit? why is this capped? - the name Ribbit doesn't come up again.

Do we need ages for animated animals? I guess we need to see if they look old or not - but I wouldn't know the difference between a 20yo or a 50yo alligator - is 50 old for an alligator? I dunno. anyway...

Quoted Text Tiny ghosts trail behind her.

I don't understand what these pepper ghosts are... I think I'm missing something. I'm open if anyone wants to tell me what it is I'm missing...

Ahhhhh - no - Francesca just gave away the ending in the middle of page 4   I think I know now what the "ghosts" are supposed to be telling us, but I still don't know what I am suppsoe to be seeing visually.

Ok done

I like this story - I think you are trying to do a bit too much in the page count and the writing could be better - but the comedy is there, animated animals are always a win, although I didn't feel invested in any of them - I didn't get the father/son relationship with the alligators
"CHESTER Ah, Dad...really?" This line doesn't really conclude that plot and felt a bit flat

The reveal before the reveal was a mistake - But you know, 72 hours and all that. But you deffo have something to work on and develop

Well done

Ghost peppers are one of the hotter peppers in The World.

The writer's imagining the peppers actually have a ghost in them

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Ghost peppers are one of the hotter peppers in The World. The writer's imagining the peppers actually have a ghost in them

Oh, I see - but why? Maybe it would have been better to have these ghosts visualize how hot these peppers are, like, the pepper ghosts are covered in tiny flames and smoke.... I dunno

Quoted from Matthew Taylor Oh, I see - but why? Maybe it would have been better to have these ghosts visualize how hot these peppers are, like, the pepper ghosts are covered in tiny flames and smoke.... I dunno

Not gonna lie, the ghost part threw me off as well. Lol

This was one for me that started off fine but got a bit confusing - had to re-read a couple of passages - a lot going on.

Meets the parameters for sure.

This one is too many characters and you can easily get away with a few I think to let us understand the story better.
Franky and Franchesca are enough from one clan. And just leave two main from the other. I had to go back and reread several times since my head wasn't in it.  I'm not sure about the story here. The punch line or moment in this case - didn't get it either.
But meets the parameters just like any other entry I read so far.

This is cute, and it has some excellent characters even if they are cliché. Maybe that's what works about them.

You don't need ages. They're animals. Even if we get to know how old they are as readers, there's no way anyone would be able to tell visually unless they're very young. And, more importantly, it doesn't matter.

The world is compelling and well-conceived. I was on board for all of it. It reminded me of the sewers in The Secret Life of Pets, and so did the characters (inspiration, perhaps?). Nothing wrong with that. What I didn't get is the animals talking to people in the market. If everyone in this world can talk to each other, then I'd expect a greater meshing. Where are the working animals?

What kills this is that you give everything away and all that's left is to watch it play out. That isn't entertaining. Letting the audience in on what's going to happen only works if we care about what's going to happen. The only reason we're watching is so Chester gets his comeuppance, but I have no reason to dislike Chester except because we're told to. But you take it even further and tell us exactly what's going to happen...and then it happens, exactly like that. There's no surprise, no anticipation, nothing rewarding about it. You could have set up the ghost peppers as just another purchase, raising the question of why Francesca would need those, but then we would get it when the ghosts appeared in Chester's trough.

Only you gave it away even earlier. How does Big Al even know what Chester is up to when Chester hasn't even gotten up to it yet? If we didn't know that, Chester would have plotted against the feast for selfish reasons, Francesca would have gone about her business seemingly oblivious only she buys those ghost peppers, and Chester gobbles the bait and we get our aha! moment.

I enjoyed this a lot, which is why I want to see it done better. Great writing, great characters, the story should have worked but it doesn't as written. It's just flat.

Hi Writer,

You put a fair share of work into this.

The story is simple, but it works thanks to the colorful world you built.

There are a lot of characters, but I wasn't lost because you made them distinguishable. Kudos for that.

The use of the whistle is light, but it was there, as the humor and the sewer, so all the parameters were met.

I liked that you used animation, it feels fresh, though there's no need for this note imho:

Quoted Text Entire script is animated.

Overall, a good entry, with great writing and good characters.

Well done,
David

I'm going to say that at first I thought, "oh no, there's way too many characters being introduced" and that I would have difficulty following along.  Wasn't the case, maybe because I could easily picture each character (being animals and all).  

Chester and his gang were pretty lightweight.  Not much at all was happening with them and the conflict felt almost non-existent.

The humor in the dialogue was lacking a bit, I didn't care much for it, but I'm not dinging you on the comedy aspect -- you hit all the notes on the parameters.

I wasn't wowed by it, but it didn't offend me.  Unfortunately you were just in that land of in-between on how it made me feel.

Best of luck,
Gary

Hello ,

Neat little story.  I liked the pepper ghosts. Nice visual to signify what they are.
Frenchy was a cool cat...for a skunk.  
Maybe instead telling how they are going to get revenge , show it. Which you did but it was like pulling the curtain back to early. Dialogue gave it away a little bit.
You did good working in so many characters. They all played their part and the story moved forward.
Franky singing was a good choice. His line “one of these days.” Really relatable. We all hope for that.
Albino alligator was different.  He got what he deserved.

Good luck!

I don’t watch animation, but I liked this script a lot. Great characters. Especially enjoyed the vengeful pepper ghosts. Very nice work.

Picked this one because it was the first one on the list of scripts. After a double-check, I see that it was actually second, but oh well. Already read it now.

Rather long title for such a short.

A bit confused right off the bat. LOWER MANHATTAN SEWER - LOUNGE??? What is that? Having a hard time picturing this. Perhaps some descriptions in the following paragraph would aid in picturing this.

Animated cartoons. Aren't cartoons animated?

On page 3, I think you can write a simple LATER instead of the same slug, but with CONTINUOUS.

Finished. Not sure what to say here. I enjoyed some of it, but at the same time, it left me cold.

First off, I think it has too many characters for a short. I hd to scroll up to read the introductions over and over just to remember who was who.

Not sure about the goal here. Make a 4th of July feast? IMHO, I would have liked to see the goal being more clear and important. Fewer characters.

The script is cute, but it doesn't hit the funny bone completely. Could've been made more funny by just having the goal more clear and important/urgent.

It takes place in the sewer. It's comedic. A whistle is used. So, you hit all the points, just could be re-written better for a short short like this.

Cute title... several ideas popped into my head at this title.

No need to do the 'animation' thing..

OH how cool. All animals! Great original idea here.

Hmmm wow ... too many characters on page 1 for me. Causing me anxiety Where's the Xanax!!??
And even several more on page 2. Way too many for a five page story IMO.

Not sure I understand this story, but you end with a fart I guess.

Good job completing. Nice idea to use animals.

A lot going on in this one. Too many characters to keep straight and I found myself skimming near the end. Very creative, good work but not one of my faves. Not sure that taking time to give the animals an age is necessary. Good job, writer. Quite the imagination.

Underneath The Streets of New York

This is a demanding read because of the huge amount of characters, and me wanting to have a clear picture and identify which animal is which character.  

Then, I don't think the character count is justified. This way the story never developed to a clear, consistent experience. The antagonistic rat pack had so little space here. I think I get the overall concept of tricking them with the "ghost spices" but that plot felt rather superficially handled because so many characters are speaking about not truly essential things. Too overladen for my taste. However, a serious attempt which gets you some points from my sight.

Ok, now I understand why Jeff is upset.

Sorry, just reading this now. I started reading scripts from the bottom of Don's list, and didn't get to the top three on the list before voting. Really sorry. I would have scored this very well.

Jeff's first round entry was so bad all I could comment on it at the time was something about "way to stay in the game". I opened this script at this late date, knowing it was Jeff's, with a bit of fear and low expectation.

I was wrong. Very wrong.

This script is in SOME ways the best of the bunch. I never thought I'd say that about a Jeff Bush script, since we're being honest. Especially in a group of such talented short script writers.

I can also see why the script did not score well on story.

I have to try to imagine how I would have read this story without knowing the author. I think my first reaction would be to recognize the enormous effort and craftsmanship that went into the work. When I see effort and craftsmanship, I'm inclined to give a story a lot more rope, to try and read it more carefully. As screenwriters we should understand that not all scripts are designed for easy reading. Some scripts that would look great on film are, in their nature, more work to read. If the script is sloppy, it's not worth the effort. But if it's quality, it's worth giving it a chance.

why the script worked(or at least should have scored well):

- the characterization was excellent for a 5 page short
- the dialog was also excellent given 72 hours
- as was the prose. I actually liked the visual of the ghosts leaving the pepper. That's perfect for an animation.
- the imagery was outstanding for an animation

why it didn't work
- it's not an easy read, despite the excellent writing.

Understanding why is critical if the goal is winning these challenges. It's not an easy read for two reasons: one, the are a lot of characters. Two, the story line gets lost in the reader's effort to absorb the characters and other details.

The storyline is this: a feast is being planned. Chester, the chief's wayward son, wants to sabotage it with his rat pack by stealing the food for the meal. Francesca, anticipating his move, has the food rigged with spicy hot peppers to make him pay for his deed.

It's easy to lose some of that with all the characters and images. The mind can only process so much in reading. This is why it is said you can open a movie in a court room but not a screenplay.

Also, there is no real main character. Francesca and Chester come closest, but we don't meet them til relatively late on the character list. There's not a compelling reason for us to care whether the dinner succeeds or not. And the stakes related to that dinner are not strong.

I have one more script to read, but I WOULD have given this the highest score. It hits on character, prose and dialog. It does not hit a homerun on story, but to be fair, NONE of these challenge stories came close to doing that. There was plenty of talented writing on display, but the stories were utterly forgettable.

I do wish this story here didn't end with a fart joke and a Simpsons reference. That felt tacked on.

But I do understand why Jeff is upset. He clearly put a ton of work into this and for once(in my experience) he actually did come close to cranking one out of the park on a challenge. That's not the knock it sounds like, I've never hit one out, I suspect there are writers here much better than me who have not, it's very hard to do.

I'm not excusing any of the comments or accusations that Jeff made in his frustration. But this script DID deserve to be higher in the ranking this round. I think it sank just because the detail and number of characters made it a hard script to just breeze through and give it a score.

It's not true that the best scripts always rise to the top. But I think it IS true that scripts that are easy to read, AND have other strengths, such as decent story, characters, etc, rise to the top.

This is all your opinion, Kev. I've looked at the script and I feel it is where it deserves to be.

Of course, Dustin. Looking back, I see you didn't review it, so hard to compare my thoughts to yours here

I have absolutely ZERO REASON to defend Jeff or his work. He generally dismisses any script I've ever written on some flimsy ground and takes much the same approach to my opinions. I only say this to support the fact that I am giving my honest opinion on the script, not taking up some pro-Jeff cause. I am actually shocked the story had this kind of quality after his first round entry.

But of course, just my opinion on the script. And I believe it didn't score well because it was more work to read.

I could honestly take this script apart... do to him what he does to others... but it will be too time consuming and people will know I've only done it because I know it is Jeff's.

This script was 4th on my scorecard for the round.

As my review says, I thought the number of characters was handled deftly. It's not perfect, as others have pointed out, but it's very good.

Some obviously weighted the flaws more heavily than I did.

If Jeff were to write more like this, he'd hit on some that win. But, I don't think this is the style he likes to write, so, I think we'll see more of his shock scripts. And, obviously, that's his prerogative. You gotta write what motivates you.

Good point, PK(sorry, I don't know your name). I was also encouraged to see Jeff breaking what he normally considers rules. That might be what Dustin is referring to, not sure.

A script like this is simply going to be harder to digest because of the character count. But let's say you were hired by Pixar for their next big project. They won't care about character count or ease of read, they're selling a movie, not a script.

It goes back to what Dave said: if your goal is to win a challenge you need to design your script a certain way.

The reason I said I would have scored this at the top is because of the criteria breakdown in this challenge. Maybe I'd break this down:

story 2 or 3
char 4
dialog 4
prose 4(people will always quibble, but the action was clear and visual)

That would have been on top of my list.

By comparison, I might have had yours:
story: 4
char 3
dialog 3
prose 3

Which would have also been near the top. Sorry I missed the vote.

Last round I gave one 4, just to explain my scoring.

So while if this had been an OWC Jeff's would not have been on top for me. But with these criteria it was.

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!!!

I'll see if I can find a few hours to dissect the bottom half of page one tomorrow.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I'll see if I can find a few hours to dissect the bottom half of page one tomorrow.

He's fair game, considering that's how Jeff treats scripts. But it seems like a waste of your time to me.

Well, let's start with Dustin's points here about how terrible the writing is, as I see he now wants to spend some more time on the rest of Page 1, and maybe the entire script.

If that's something you think is important, will help, or whatever, please, spend your time however you feel is appropriate.

I thought you and I were trying to bury the hatchet, but looks like that's not the case.

So, let me respond to your feedback here...

Quoted from DustinBowcot    Code For a sewer, it's pretty nice. Show don't tell... screenwriting 101.

Dustin, c'mon now...this is an animated comedy, set in a sewer, with talking animals.  It's not a realistic world, and in a 5 page script, the last thing I'm going to worry about is describing settings in detail.  It doesn't matter, and you know that.

Actually, I think it's quite a clever way to get things started and make it clear we're not in a real world.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Code Animated cartoons play on each. Good job you told us those cartoons are animated... how would we know otherwise?

Sure, you're correct, but what is the downside here that's worth bringing this up?  Did it cost an extra line?  No.  It's an extra word that doesn't need to be here, but far from something anyone would say makes the entire script poorly written.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Code In front of the TV's... TVs.

  Correct.  Can't argue this at all.  Not sure why i did this...and have done it in the past as well.  Thanks for pointing this out.  It won't happen again.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

Well, if you really think the only way into a sewer is through a "drainage hole", you're sorely mistaken, my friend.  And, more importantly, again, this is an animated fantasy world comedy.  You either go with it, or you won't be able to watch any of the very successful animated movies that make bajillions of dollars every year.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Code ...an old bullfrog jumps up on one of the TV's... TVs.

Yeah, same as above.  It's a mistake that I completely acknowledge.  Thanks for making it clear that it's a mistake each time it's used.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

Well, I apologize if this threw you off for some reason.  It's a comedy, it's animated, and I thought this was kind of funny or cute

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

Yeah, I agree.  Several peeps seemed to be confused over this, and it is my fault.  It should come after the question mark.  My mistake.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

I think we're clear now that "TV's" is a mistake.

You are 100% incorrect on this being an incomplete sentence, though, and I implore you an/or anyone else to show me why it's not a complete sentence.

But, more importantly, so what if it was?  What I "bang on about" is fragments.  This is not a fragment in any way, shape, or form.  I've omitted the word "and", and used a comma in it's place, as I always do, as peeps always should.  "and" is not a necessary word in screenplays 99% of the time.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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?

No, not a big fan of hyphens, really, but you are 100% correct here.  I rarely if ever spell out introduction details like this, and I obviously overlooked these.  Thanks for pointing them out.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

Again, this isn't something anyone would bring up, unless they're trying as hard as they can to nitpick as much as possible.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with the line as written.  What I wrote does not take up any additional lines.  I merely have 3 extra words based on how I structured the sentence.

Quoted from DustinBowcot 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.

Tragic?  Really?  If you read this alongside the other 19 entries, you'd call the writing here "tragic"?  I find that truly ridiculous, and I think you and anyone else who reads this would agree, but I'm out of touch, I guess, and the worst writer in this challenge, as others have noted.

Thanks for your very well meaning post and feedback.  It's much appreciated.

Quoted from eldave1   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: 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.

Dave, I'll respond to your complete post as well, when I can, but let's clear something up here right now.

The review I gave for "Paradise Airlines" is spot on.  Everything I said was 100% true, and the brief things I bought up were less than 10% of the errors, mistakes, awkward writing, poor Slug use, underdeveloped story, no characters, etc.  No one should argue with a word I said...and I bet ya, there's not a single writer in this tournament that will take it personally.

You know why?  Because I wrote the damn thing, and I was as brutally honest as I am all the time.

What do you think about that?  

Written and conceived in 48 minutes, title page, logline, and submission 10 minutes.  Don correctly told me, "you made it with 2 minutes to spare."

Very embarrassing.  I didn't actually even read it until the next morning, and I laughed a little, cried a little, and then started drinking heavily.  HA!!

My favorite part was "100% healthy organs". The greatest unfilmable ever conceived!  

Quoted from Dreamscale Dave, I'll respond to your complete post as well, when I can, but let's clear something up here right now. The review I gave for "Paradise Airlines" is spot on.  Everything I said was 100% true, and the brief things I bought up were less than 10% of the errors, mistakes, awkward writing, poor Slug use, underdeveloped story, no characters, etc.  No one should argue with a word I said...and I bet ya, there's not a single writer in this tournament that will take it personally. You know why?  Because I wrote the damn thing, and I was as brutally honest as I am all the time. What do you think about that?   Written and conceived in 48 minutes, title page, logline, and submission 10 minutes.  Don correctly told me, "you made it with 2 minutes to spare." Very embarrassing.  I didn't actually even read it until the next morning, and I laughed a little, cried a little, and then started drinking heavily.  HA!!

Brilliant

Ok, Rick, your turn, brother.  I'm a little surprised to read this from you, but it's all in good fun, so let's see exactly what we have here...

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.

Consistently bad?  They were?  Hmmm, I didn't quite see it that way.

And, "for good reason"?  Really?  OK, let's move forward...

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films 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.

WOW...again, I'm just literally floored reading this.

You really think the characters here were worse than the vast majority of these scripts?  Forgettable?  WOW...each one was actually completely unique, if you think about it.

Far too many characters...yeah, heard that a number of times.  Also heard, too many characters, had to start skimming.  HA, that's actually quite humorous.  You guys are killing me.

Let's look at all these characters for a second...

11 named characters, 7 with at least 2 or more lines of dialogue, and 2 with 1 line of dialogue.  There are numerous background characters that "are just there".

Is that way too many, considering that 7 named characters are different kinds of animals, 2 are humans, and 2 are "multiple characters".  Is this really hard to differentiate and keep track of?

How many characters do you have in your entry, Rick?  It's hard to say, because a number of them aren't properly intro'd, but I did count, and there are 8 who speak at least 1 line.  There's more, but again, hard to really count, based on how it's written.

So, I have 9 speaking, you have 8.  Am I missing something here?  You really think any one of your characters are more memorable than mine?  Not a fucking chance, and it's a joke if you actually disagree.

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

Very boring?  OK, if that's what you really thought.  I didn't think so at all.

Maybe you're not a fan of animated movies and the like...maybe that's why you find every single "creature" unrelatable?  If you take a second to really read in, I think you'll find quite a bit of personality in each and every character.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films 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.

Not even close.  Sure there are little mistakes, but to say "full of the same mistakes he will trash an entire script for"?  Really?  No, not remotely close.

So, here's another interesting "point" a few brought up.  "He gave away the ending on page 3 and 4 of the 5 page script, so he blew it".  HA, again very funny.  We've got readers here who can't even follow along to things that are literally spelled out, and you think there's a simple way not to show what's going on, and have the ending make sense?  I mean, for God's sake, it's an animated comedy and look how many peeps had no clue why there were little wispy ghosts around the ghost peppers.  Really?  Peeps can't understand that?

I structured this the way I did to make it easy to follow and understand.  I saw no way around that in 5 pages, and in reality, there was some stuff that had to get cut when Chester confronted Francesca.

Prose has nothing to do with story structure.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films 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'm shocked again to hear this.  Not 1 funny moment here.  Not 1 funny line of dialogue.  Sad to hear this, as I tried and thought I really succeeded.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films 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.

Yeah, reading these all, I guess I'm lucky to not be in 16th or 17th.  Some real amazing scripts this round and just so funny.  NOT!!!

I won't even comment on the no dialogue entry or the Sherlock Holmes spoof, but...really?  Honestly, Rick?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films 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.

Jeff can take it for sure.  Just wish what I had to take made a little more sense.

Again, Rick, I'm very surprised this is all coming from you.  Your entry here was absolutely ridiculous, and the audience it would appeal to has got to be less than 5% of the world population.  And I mean that seriously, sorry to say.

Quoted from Dreamscale ...You know why?  Because I wrote the damn thing...

Bummer Dave, the one time Jeff keeps a low profile, changes his M.O. and doesn't lavish his own script with praise.

Quoted from LC Bummer Dave, the one time Jeff keeps a low profile, changes his M.O. and doesn't lavish his own script with praise.

I know - right.

Not to worry. I'm going to save his review on a word file and just cut and paste it as my comment on all of his future OWC entries

Quoted from eldave1 I know - right. Not to worry. I'm going to save his review on a word file and just cut and paste it as my comment on all of his future OWC entries

That seems right, Dave.  Thanks for being the voice of reason, like you so want to be.

But, wouldn't it make more sense just to grade each script based on what it is, not by who wrote it?

You guys are unreal.

You want me to go away?  I can...very easily.

Fuck all those sheep who think they can be wolves.  You're not.  You're weak.

I'm not a sheep or a wolf. I'm a goat. Most of the time I eat, but sometimes I go "baaaaa".

Quoted from Dreamscale That seems right, Dave.  Thanks for being the voice of reason, like you so want to be. But, wouldn't it make more sense just to grade each script based on what it is, not by who wrote it? You guys are unreal. You want me to go away?  I can...very easily. Fuck all those sheep who think they can be wolves.  You're not.  You're weak.

Don't go! I needs your warm touch, Bro.

Quoted from Dreamscale That seems right, Dave.  Thanks for being the voice of reason, like you so want to be. But, wouldn't it make more sense just to grade each script based on what it is, not by who wrote it? You guys are unreal. You want me to go away?  I can...very easily. Fuck all those sheep who think they can be wolves.  You're not.  You're weak.

Jeff - it was a joke. Good grief. Did you seriously think I meant I was literally going to do this? Did I need more .

For the record, I am not a wolf, sheep or the voice of reason.

..........

I'm Batman.

Quoted from eldave1 Jeff - it was a joke. Good grief. Did you seriously meant I was literally going to do this? Did I need more . For the record, I am not a wolf, sheep or the voice of reason. .......... I'm Batman.

I'm not sure anymore, Dave...

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm not sure anymore, Dave...

Okay.  I will clarify exactly how I feel.

I will view all if your work with an open mind. Especially easy in OWCs since they are anonymous.

I am generally okay with the points you make in your reviews of other scripts with noted exceptions on some technical differences we have. However I think your criticisms are expressed way too harshly sometimes.  I think you should change that.  but obviously your prerogative.

I really did not like your inferences of cheating,  score rigging, etc in this contest . They were uncalled for and beneath you. And if you do think there were shenanigans- best handled with a PM to Don.

Like me and most every other writer., I don't think you evaluate your work objectively.  I don't either for my scripts.  However,  when there is a disconnect between how you view your scripts versus how others do, you go off the rails a bit. Well,  in this OWC that is.

I think you must be tired or fatigued or whatever because your comments in this OWC have evolved from biting to mean spirited.

That is what I think.  Conveyed sincerely and with no I'll intention.

Quoted from eldave1 Okay.  I will clarify exactly how I feel. I will view all if your work with an open mind. Especially easy in OWCs since they are anonymous. I am generally okay with the points you make in your reviews of other scripts with noted exceptions on some technical differences we have. However I think your criticisms are expressed way too harshly sometimes.  I think you should change that.  but obviously your prerogative. I really did not like your inferences of cheating,  score rigging, etc in this contest . They were uncalled for and beneath you. And if you do think there were shenanigans- best handled with a PM to Don. Like me and most every other writer., I don't think you evaluate your work objectively.  I don't either for my scripts.  However,  when there is a disconnect between how you view your scripts versus how others do, you go off the rails a bit. Well,  in this OWC that is. I think you must be tired or fatigued or whatever because your comments in this OWC have evolved from biting to mean spirited. That is what I think.  Conveyed sincerely and with no I'll intention.

Understood.  Look at the piling on.  Look at your own ganging up.  I'll get to your post ASAP, but we both know that I can very easily respond to every single point you made, and when I made a mistake, I will own up to it, as I always do.

You're not in this comp, but you want to be the "level headed approach to reason", yet you lash out with the same BS as a few other wanna be wolves.

You're a great writer, and you know the BS nits you and others are reaching for are pathetic and weak, at best.

Seriously, you want me gone?  You want these shitty scripts to take praise?  You want to continue to BS everyone about how great they are?  C'mon, man.  You know better...I know you do.

Jeff, it was just a taste of your own medicine. Nothing personal!

We have to experience this on every thread! Lol.

Quoted from LC Bummer Dave, the one time Jeff keeps a low profile, changes his M.O. and doesn't lavish his own script with praise.

That was funny. I read that last night and went to bed holding Jeff a little more highly in my estimation. Touche!

Quoted from DustinBowcot That was funny. I read that last night and went to bed holding Jeff a little more highly in my estimation. Touche!

Yes - it was quite the clever ruse - well played, IMO

Quoted from Dreamscale Understood.  Look at the piling on.  Look at your own ganging up.

Hmm. I think I have to plead guilty here.  

Thinking honestly about it, I'd probably would not have responded at all in this thread if I wasn't so angry about the very rude post that you wrote. Of course, as it turns out you posted that on your own script (clever - well played). So, while I think my actual comments on your script were valid, I'll agree that my motivation was less than noble. I apologize for that.

Quoted Text I'll get to your post ASAP, but we both know that I can very easily respond to every single point you made, and when I made a mistake, I will own up to it, as I always do.

No need to.  Save the effort.

You've already responded to the core issues I raised in response to similar issues in  posts made by other readers.  The key issues are subjective anyway -  it's your script, so keep as you wish.

As a note, I don't think you always own up to your mistakes - it strikes me that you defend some when you probably would not defend those mistakes made by other writers.  The reason you're getting hit hard here, especially on the technical stuff,  as that you have an established pattern of blistering other OWC contestants for making similar format and typo errors and doing so in over the top manner.

Quoted Text You're not in this comp, but you want to be the "level headed approach to reason", yet you lash out with the same BS as a few other wanna be wolves.

I am not in the comp - correct. I don't mind being level-headed. I view that as a compliment.

Your point about being "level- headed"  not being consistent with piling on is valid.  I think my behavior is hypocritical. I apologized for that up front. But I do blame you as well - you have been such an arse in this OWC you've brought at the worst in me. So, guilty with an explanation.

Quoted Text You're a great writer, and you know the BS nits you and others are reaching for are pathetic and weak, at best.

First - thanks. Second, no - I disagree. I think the subjective issues are valid. But again - do with them what you will.  

In terms of the nit issues - you can't see that they're there because your reviews of other scripts are filled with them???? i.e., peeps are trying to point out the irony here - e.g., all of a sudden an error's not  important if it doesn't take up an extra line?? When have you applied that same standard to others??

Quoted Text Seriously, you want me gone?  You want these shitty scripts to take praise?   You want to continue to BS everyone about how great they are?  C'mon, man.  You know better...I know you do.

And this kind of encapsulates the whole issue in one paragraph.

No, I don't want you gone. I want you to change.

Look at what you just did - while taking umbrage with how your script is being treated, you categorize others as shitty scripts and those who liked them as bull-shitters.  The hypocrisy is over whelming.

You de-railed this OWC with your allegations of cheating. Christ - you called Libby out for this without a shred of evidence. You shit all over this thing and you're shocked when people come after you for it??? It's amazes me that you don't see the connection.

Oh - and I want you to be less cruel in your own reviews.  Other wise you'll look like a wannabe wolf and someone who piles on when not needed.  I know now that you think those things are bad - so live the standard, mate.  You'll be better for it.

Dave, I'm not the only one who is saying or has said, based on the parameters, the vast majority are not good scripts...and I still stand by that.

At best, writers have a total of 72 hours to create, write, and submit a script.  With sleep, life in general, and work, how much time does that give most?  Very little.

So, we have parameters that are forced and "silly" mostly, little time, and from some little effort.  This combination is not a blueprint for great scripts.

It's just not, and the majority of the scripts' quality shows.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dave, I'm not the only one who is saying or has said, based on the parameters, the vast majority are not good scripts...and I still stand by that. At best, writers have a total of 72 hours to create, write, and submit a script.  With sleep, life in general, and work, how much time does that give most?  Very little. So, we have parameters that are forced and "silly" mostly, little time, and from some little effort.  This combination is not a blueprint for great scripts. It's just not, and the majority of the scripts' quality shows.

Agree that tight deadlines and parameters are going to inherently yield less quality scripts than broad parameters and tons of time. But so....? It's the nature of the beast isn't it?

AND...It doesn't mean that by definition that the top-rated scripts are inherently bad. AND...I'd guess several folks viewed these scripts in the context of the tight parameters in which they had to be written - I am cool with that. Also cool with those who didn't. Kind of readers' choice as far as I'm concerned.

I read two of the top three from round two (Rats of a Feather and Coming up Roses).  Thought they were both well written and I enjoyed them both. They were deserving. On Roses, I would have struggled with whether or not it met the criteria. I don't think it did and was relieved that I didn't have to vote because I otherwise really liked it. Did not read Dating in a New World. But the two I read were by no means shitty and did not lead me to believe that their placement in the top two were the results of anything other than the readers opinion of the scripts.

In terms of effort - I won't weigh in as I haven't a clue how much effort a writer puts into any particular script. A poor one could have been 100%, three days of dedication and a good one could have been blown out in a half hour. Who really knows.

Rats of a Feather was a good script.  Not great by any means, but definitely a top 2 effort here.

Quoted from Dreamscale Rats of a Feather was a good script.  Not great by any means, but definitely a top 2 effort here.

I'm crammed now. Hopefully I'll find time sooner or later to get to them all.