Here, in its entirety, is a recent review:

Quoted from A review Your hero murders people who don't like his taste in music?  What kind of S H I T is that?  I stopped reading then and there -- page 6. Here's a new phrase for your vocabulary:  morally indefensible.

Now, for the sake of the argument, this reviewer DOES have his facts straight.  A morally indefensible – and somewhat silly, if we are being honest – murder takes place on page 6.

He stopped reading there, and told the author exactly why.

If you were a moderator, would you let this review stand?  For now, I say yes.

But, as moderator of the script boards, I am curious as to the view of our community here on “harsh” reviews, and where you think the line should be drawn.

It is your chance for some input on how things are run around here.  All comments will be duly noted.

you can be brutally honest without being a twat, i have seen it before, and it is not hard, I see people do it on these boards all the time.  You can even hate a script and make comments that aren't dickheadish, but people feel good putting down others, , I know bullies when I see em, or hear em, or read em, i have dealt with them my whole life.  nothing wrong with being honest, and brutally honest, that is a good thing, but you can with out being a jerk, the fact that someone doesn't try says something about them.

Is Balt back?

While a little harsh in the language department, I don't see a problem with this review (atleast what you posted here).  He/she supported his opinion with why he felt that way.

Let it stand!


Phil

I see nothing wrong with this review. I have read some reviews from this same reviewer and I think he’s often too harsh. I don’t think he is in this case, however.

My view of a review is that it should be both positive and negative. No script is perfect and so it stands to reason that there should be some negative criticism. However, on the opposite end of the spectrum, seldom is a script so bad as to have no redeeming qualities. In most cases, the writer can be praised for having some talent or another.

I personally believe that a reviewer should point out both the flaws and strong points of both the work and the writer. A reviewer should tell a writer what’s wrong with his or her script and why. The reviewer should also offer constructive criticism to the writer. The goal in my opinion is to help the writer improve as a writer. Just bashing the work doesn’t particularly accomplish that goal.

We are NOT critics, the same as movie critics. We are writers who are supposed to be helping other writers. Therefore, criticizing a script's shortcomings without offering any constructive advise as to how to improve is worthless.

That said, it is a fact that some scripts are so poorly written that they cannot or should not be read. Some are formatted incorrectly and require a rewrite prior to being read. Some are - as the reviewer above concluded - morally indefensible. The review above points out that by page 6, the main character has become so unlikable that the story cannot be salvaged. A line has been crossed such that the main character cannot find redemption from the reader’s perspective. That’s a valid criticism.


Breanne

I'm not a fan of foul language, but honesty is appreciated. If I write something crummy I hope people will point that out. I listen to all comments on my scripts, but I have only had two harsh reviews ever. Both were in regard to Savage Frontier. When I went to rewrite that one, guess which comments had the biggest impact on my rewrite?

So, even if it's no fun to read harsh reviews, they may be the once we listen to most....

Maybe I'm just weird.

But are we asking to have our morals reviewed or our craft? I mean if this critique was one facet in a thorough review, then okay, throw it in there, but dismissing an entire script, and letting the author know in a posted review, because of conflicting morals, that's not helpful. I think the concept is funny, I don't know if it's meant to be.

If people stopped at "morally indefesible" without going for the crux of the script, the story, the characters, we wouldn't have South Park, Family Guy, Seinfeld, or my favorite it's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

I don't think this has anything to do with being harsh. It has to do with being relevant. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that someone wrote a single sentence about how The Farm (sorry to make an example out of you, bert) was morally reprehensible because of its graphic violence involving children, or because of its...I dunno... biased depiction of crazy killer teddy bears, whatever. Would that help you improve the script, being told that your morals are skewed?

My point is, on this site we're asking for each others advice because of our experience in writing. Not in ethics. Personally, I wanna know what people think of my story, my dialogue, my structure, my format, my protagonist's character arc. Not my morals.

Haha, the fastest replies ever to a comment!!

Quoted from Phil Let it stand!

Too late.  Don, I suspect.

Quoted from TJ Imagine, for the sake of argument, that someone wrote a single sentence about how The Farm was morally reprehensible…

It would be deleted immediately.  Because I can.

Quoted from TJ ...we're asking for each others advice because of our experience in writing. Not in ethics.

What he meant was that the script became unreadable to him at that point.  He was not making a moral judgement.  He was judging the story and its credibility.  Read Brea’s post.  She gets it.

But yes, attacking the author is out of bounds.  But he wasn't doing that, either.

Quoted from Pia So, even if it's no fun to read harsh reviews…

I think it’s lots of fun.  As long as it isn’t my script...

Quite a crappy review the guy wrote, IMO.

The reason behind a murder is never stupid, silly, or even shallow. It's the lack of plot/story/history that is lacking in those cases.

People have been killed for less. People have been killed for giving crappy reviews too, I am sure...

Quoted Text It would be deleted immediately.  Because I can.

Haha, you're mad with power!

But that's not really what he's saying, I think. Granted you can take that away from it, but because of the way he wraps his criticism it's useless, Imo.

Quoted Text Your hero murders people who don't like his taste in music?  What kind of S H I T is that?  I stopped reading then and there -- page 6. Here's a new phrase for your vocabulary:  morally indefensible.

He states the fact that the hero murders people whose musical tastes he dislikes, and then goes on to ask rhetorically what kind of shit it is. Concluding with the tag: morally reprehensible. That's it.

Chucky kills people pretty indiscriminately, and what he does is, in my book, morally indefensible. It's still a funny movie.

That's why it's not good enough to stop at "morally indefensible". Just like it's not good enough to write "it was boring" or "It wasn't funny" in a review. It doesn't help.

Quoted from Death Monkey My point is, on this site we're asking for each others advice because of our experience in writing. Not in ethics. Personally, I wanna know what people think of my story, my dialogue, my structure, my format, my protagonist's character arc. Not my morals.

Having the hero kill someone for not liking someone's else's music is ridiculous, though.  No matter what he does after that, he's not going to atone for his evil act.

The writer screwed up big time for writing this into a script.


Phil

I agree with what T.J said, has anyone seen Mr. Brooks, it's hilarious, and I have a feeling it is meant to be, it is totally morally bankrupt, our hero is addicted to killing, and the movie is a blast in a sick and twisted way, same with Natural Born Killers, I mean Woody Harrelson rapes and murders a girl in that, so I think you need to see the full picture before passing judgment.

I just think there is a way to be critical with out being a jerk or putting someone down, that's how I fell and that's how I live my life, I'm a glass is half full kinda fool, but is that wrong?  I just wish we nicer to one another, I can be a jerk sometimes and I don't mean to be, it slips out, I may word things wrong, but I have never gone out to put someone who I didn't know or someone who has done nothing wrong down.

I think the point is being missed here. No one is saying that a script can’t have a morally reprehensible character. No one said that and there’s no need to cite stories with such characters. We’re all well aware that lots of - nearly all - scripts have morally reprehensible characters. Most - if not all - of us have written characters who were morally reprehensible. That’s not the issue.

The point is that if you’re going to write a main character who slits the throat of another character, he had better be three dimensional and/or have a lot of charisma to sustain the reader. If not, then it’s going to come off as violence for the sake of violence and that’s going to offend some readers’ sensibilities.

If a reader finds a character to have no redeeming qualities, that’s the responsibility of the writer. It’s the fault of the writer that the above reviewer found the script too morally indefensible to continue reading. And the writer has to take that responsibility.

People have the right to find your script morally indefensible. Quite frankly, I’ve found a few morally indefensible myself.

I don’t care if my readers are beginners, seasoned writers, or just people who love to read. I care about their opinions. If they misunderstand anything I’ve written, if they are put off by a character who is supposed to carry the film, or if they think my writing is morally indefensible, then it’s my fault. These people reviewing are interested enough in your script to open it up. That means they are possibly the people who would come see your produced film. If a writer doesn’t care about what they think, that writer can enjoy a very limited career.

The writer may take the criticism any way he or she chooses. If someone outside your target audience is offended, you may not care. However, if a person doesn’t find your character well written enough to sustain him as a character and that his morally reprehensible behavior overshadows him and makes him an irredeemable liability, a writer would be wise to heed and learn from such criticism.

A reader has every right to judge the moral dimension of a script and determine if they care to read further. They have every right to inform the writer of their disappointment. A writer may not like having his or her work morally judged, but like it or not, we all have at some point closed a book, script, or something or another, because it offended our sensibilities.

A moral judgment against a script is not a moral judgment against the writer. It’s a powerful message that the writer failed to write a character well enough to get the reader to read further despite a morally indefensible character.


Breanne

Dudes, try to keep this on topic.  Enough with Mr. Brooks.

We are talking about "harsh" reviews for scripts, and how much vitriol should be admissible if the script -- in the eyes of the reviewer -- is genuinely terrible.

"The Cabin" springs to mind.  So does "The Child Molester".  You just can't write a good review for some of the scripts around here.

But if the author posted it for feedback, telling him the script is terrible should be -- in my eyes -- fair game.

The topic at hand, in a nutshell, is how much bashing is too much?

The alternative topic is how much fairy dust -- "Great Job!!!" for a script that clearly isn't great -- should be allowed?

I see that as a problem, too, quite frankly.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson The point is that if you’re going to write a main character who slits the throat of another character, he had better be three dimensional and/or have a lot of charisma to sustain the reader.

The point is that, if your main character is a hero then he better have a good reason for committing a 'wrong deed.'  Killing a rapist is always good.  Killing someone over their taste in music is never good...unless it's Madonna.



Phil