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

Quoted from dogglebe Sometimes you can be nice.  Sometimes you can't.

I disagree whole heartedly.  

You can always be kind, there's no sin against that.  Look here, let's say Don posts a script with the synopsis: "the story of a gyu who neds money$" in exactly that writing because we've all seen stuff like that.  We open the script up and the first page is a formatting nightmare.  We read a little bit and discover that, well, it's a stupid script.  It definitely needs alot of work.  Maybe for whatever reason you decide to read the entire 60 something pages of it(why you would, I don't know).  When you finish, you may think that it's so convoluted that the author just doesn't care.

Well, that's where perception comes into play.   When I was 16 I wrote a feature script that I thought would bring me fame and glory.  I was proud of it.  I was certain that people would like it.  I posted it on Triggerstreet for the world to see and guess what happened?  They didn't like it.  While the reviews were strongly negative, the people were still respectful, and that's an experience that I'm glad I went through and I'm grateful that they were respectful.  Now, today when I read that script I realize how it's a giant pile of dogshit because I've grown so much as a writer since then, but the point is that at that time, it was my best work.  I put forth alot of effort to it.  People on here who, as you claim, "sometimes you can't(be nice to)" may feel the same way.  

Granted, there are exceptions.  There are folks on here who DON'T take respectful advice and continue to post crap scripts, and those are situations where they're NOT giving you something to read.  In repetitive cases like that, yes, you can and should give them something they don't want to hear(but again, if the script is so crappy from page 1, why bother reading the whole thing?).  But other than that, there's no real reason why everyone can't leave respectful reviews.  

People put their "babies" up here.  If someone saw your baby and said "What kind of shit is that?!" how would you feel?

I'm not saying that everything needs to be sugarcoated like Carrie Fisher reviewing movies, but respectful feedback is what keeps people going.  It worked for me.

You know what, I read the first 10 pages of his script and the first thing that came to mind, the most pertinent point of criticism to me is the fact that his script is written like a novel. His action paragraphs are 6-7 lines long.

That's tangible and that constructive.

I think you should be allowed to be as fervent as you like in your review, good or bad, but let's just contain it to the script and the story's machinations.

What bryan could've said was "your main character is unlikable, he is a serial killer, and not a cute one like Hannibal".

Personally, I think the concept of an 80's glam metal Otto-man dude killing people who don't like glam is very funny one. What should be adressed is the fact that this dude's script...wasn't.

I know I'm new around here, but I hope everyone values my opinion as well as they value everyone else's. I think this review is garbage, because usually when I start to read a screenplay, I don't stop just because I don't like it. Screenwriting communities are there to tell you what you can improve on, and is basically a great learning experience. I think attacking the author is unacceptable, because it's just putting him down, and the author might not even want to write another screenplay after that.

Just my opinion.

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

Too much?  No such animal.  Just make sure that the punishment fits the crime.

The worst scripts on these boards (IMHO) comes from a guy named Max Alexander Malloy.  He's dropped three turds on these boards and, as far as I can tell, has never looked at the feedback.  I've taken a red pen and a blow torch to two of his scripts; they are that bad (read me).  Other people's scripts I've had problems with but critiqued it accordingly (read The Curse of America's Last Raped Slave if you don't believe me).  Other people's scripts I've had problems with but critiqued it accordingly.

If you can back up your criticism, then you should be able to express yourself.


Phil

I agree that the, “What kind of s*** is that?” line has no place in a review. There’s too much profanity in the open forum. People need to leave that stuff in their scripts.

As far as the rest of the review itself, I don’t see that the reviewer was really cruel. If a reader finds a script to be morally indefensible, I think they have a right to say so. It’s true that Bryan generally posts very short reviews that aren’t always very helpful. And they are usually too harsh, in my opinion. But, other than the s*** line - which shouldn’t be there - in this case I don’t see anything really wrong with his assessment. It may or may not be my own assessment, but I have personally found a script morally indefensible before and didn’t hesitate to say so. Nor should I. Nor should anyone.


Breanne

I think there's too many snobs that aren't even putting a real effort into fully reading a screenplay. That guy that reviewed that screenplay is a snob, he downgrades the author, which I think is totally unfair. The author put hours into it, and probably meant well, but that review was just a giant turd dropped on it.

I don't think that was harsh, that was bull S, all the guy was trying to do was downgrade the author.

Quoted Text I think there's too many snobs that aren't even putting a real effort into fully reading a screenplay.

I appreciate your sentiment, but also remember that it takes a good amount of time to read a screenplay and perhaps even longer to review it thoroughly.

I can earn a lot of money in the time it takes to do that, or I can do something that benefits myself in some way.

If it seems that someone hasn't even made an effort (like spell checking for example) it can seem like an insult to even be expected to read a script.

I always try and be constructive with criticism but even then people get offended.

I understand it takes a while to review them, I have reviewed screenplays before. It's probably more difficult than writing the whole thing, I just don't think this guy even put a thought into a review. It makes me question if he even read any of it, and just read the synopsis. His review was dismal.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I agree that the, “What kind of s*** is that?” line has no place in a review. There’s too much profanity in the open forum. People need to leave that stuff in their scripts. As far as the rest of the review itself, I don’t see that the reviewer was really cruel. If a reader finds a script to be morally indefensible, I think they have a right to say so. It’s true that Bryan generally posts very short reviews that aren’t always very helpful. And they are usually too harsh, in my opinion. But, other than the s*** line - which shouldn’t be there - in this case I don’t see anything really wrong with his assessment. It may or may not be my own assessment, but I have personally found a script morally indefensible before and didn’t hesitate to say so. Nor should I. Nor should anyone. Breanne

Personally I don't feel profanity is the problem. One can express a very articulate opinion rife with profanity, but that's a whole different discussion.

The problem with Bryan's review is that they are not helpful. It does not help the reader  to be told his story is morally reprehensible, because what you're telling him is, essentially, that his morals clash with yours. that he can't work on.

Saying that a character is unlikable, giving examples of how this is so and what could be done to ammend it, will both help the author identify his mistakes and help him correct them, because they deal with craft.

Just like one-word reviews, saying something is morally indefensible, and nothing else, is useless, IMO.

I.e. "Dude, your script was really boring! It was totally slow and the jokes weren't funny" might be 100% true, but it's not a review.

Quoted from Stigmata I know I'm new around here, but I hope everyone values my opinion as well as they value everyone else's.

Oh, you think so?  Just wait until after school.  You and me got a date by the tetherball pole.

Quoted from Stigmata I think this review is garbage, because usually when I start to read a screenplay, I don't stop just because I don't like it. Screenwriting communities are there to tell you what you can improve on, and is basically a great learning experience. I think attacking the author is unacceptable, because it's just putting him down, and the author might not even want to write another screenplay after that.

When I first joined this group, I read the scripts in their entirety.  After reading so many stinkers, I gave up on this practice.  Now, I read the first ten to twenty pages, which is what agents and producers do.  If I like it, I keep reading it.  If I think the characters are lifeless and/or the story is going nowhere and/or there's big problems in it, I stop.  Scripts that start out poorly don't get better after twenty pages...no matter what the author says.  I read the scripts because I like to; if I'm reading one that makes my sphincter tighten, I put it down.

Quoted from Stigmata I understand it takes a while to review them, I have reviewed screenplays before. It's probably more difficult than writing the whole thing, I just don't think this guy even put a thought into a review. It makes me question if he even read any of it, and just read the synopsis. His review was dismal.

Having the script open up with the hero shooting someone over his taste in music like finding a roach in your breakfast cereal; you don't hope the second bowl is roach-free.  You toss it all out.

Good use of semi-colons, eh?


Phil

Quoted Text I read the first ten to twenty pages, which is what agents and producers do

I was taking to a producer the other day (No names!) who wouldn't even go that far.

He was telling me of all the different ways producers he knows look at scripts and the way he evaluates them himself. He reckoned you could even tell what the script was going to be like from the name of the writer and the postal code.

Anything written by a "Mrs" was straight in the bin because he knew it would be a domestic story that went nowhere.

Anyway, I digress...

Quoted Text Now, I read the first ten to twenty pages, which is what agents and producers do.  If I like it, I keep reading it.  If I think the characters are lifeless and/or the story is going nowhere and/or there's big problems in it, I stop.  Scripts that start out poorly don't get better after twenty pages...no matter what the author says.  I read the scripts because I like to; if I'm reading one that makes my sphincter tighten, I put it down.

You've said this as long as I've been here so it's not outdated.  It's a respectable approach, but I'm curious...

Quoted Text He's dropped three turds on these boards and, as far as I can tell, has never looked at the feedback.  I've taken a red pen and a blow torch to two of his scripts; they are that bad (read me).  Other people's scripts I've had problems with but critiqued it accordingly (read The Curse of America's Last Raped Slave if you don't believe me).

If this script is so bad, why stick to your normal formula, let alone read another one of his scripts?  No offense, but that sounds alot like stuffing socks down your pants.  

Quoted from Death Monkey It does not help the reader  to be told his story is morally reprehensible, because what you're telling him is, essentially, that his morals clash with yours. that he can't work on.

I disagree. It’s a mistake to assume that a morally reprehensible character reflects in any way on the personal morality of the writer. We have all written morally reprehensible characters at some time or another. That doesn’t speak anything toward our own personal morality.

When I find a script morally indefensible, that doesn’t mean the writer’s personal morality conflicts with mine. I probably wouldn’t know the author well enough to make that determination. What it means is that something in that script so offended me as to make me quit reading it. That’s all it means.

There is one script at this site that was so offensive to women that I refused to read it. I don’t know why the author wrote it. It could be he hated women. It could mean he did a lousy job at satirizing. Either way, he needed to know there was something repulsive to women about what he’d written.

Quoted from Death Monkey I.e. "Dude, your script was really boring! It was totally slow and the jokes weren't funny" might be 100% true, but it's not a review.

Boring is a fair criticism. I would want to know why it was boring. But if it really is boring, that’s fair to say.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I disagree. It’s a mistake to assume that a morally reprehensible character reflects in any way on the personal morality of the writer. We have all written morally reprehensible characters at some time or another. That doesn’t speak anything toward our own personal morality. When I find a script morally indefensible, that doesn’t mean the writer’s personal morality conflicts with mine. I probably wouldn’t know the author well enough to make that determination. What it means is that something in that script so offended me as to make me quit reading it. That’s all it means. There is one script at this site that was so offensive to women that I refused to read it. I don’t know why the author wrote it. It could be he hated women. It could mean he did a lousy job at satirizing. Either way, he needed to know there was something repulsive to women about what he’d written.

Well, the difference is the same. You're telling him the morals of the script he wrote clashes with your own, right? Morals aren't absolutes, they're not objective, you can't review them like you can plot-points and character arcs.

Just like someone writing "your main character is too liberal" isn't a constructive critique.

Quoted Text Boring is a fair criticism. I would want to know why it was boring. But if it really is boring, that’s fair to say. Breanne

That was my point. Saying that something is boring, slow or unfunny without backing it up isn't a review. The same can be said for Bryan. Had he formulated his criticism as to the character's likeability and that it clashed with the serious tone of the film, then okay fine, put it in there. But is it stands right now, it's pretty worthless, IMO.

"Note to self: make script less morally indefensible", you know...

Quoted from greg If this script is so bad, why stick to your normal formula, let alone read another one of his scripts?  No offense, but that sounds alot like stuffing socks down your pants.

First of all, what I stuff down my pants is none of your business!

In the case of these scripts, they're so bad that they're enjoyable to read.  And it's such a learning experience on how not to write a script.  Read five pages of it.  G'wan.  I dare ya!  If it means anything, Clipping the Wings of our White Masters was so bad that even Balt was offended.

Balt!

That script must've sucked a lot of goat balls.


Phil

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films He reckoned you could even tell what the script was going to be like from the name of the writer and the postal code.

I find that statement to be absolutely fascinating.

As far as this review thing goes, I think honesty is the best policy, but I think feedback is far more beneficial when a little tact is used.  Rather than "Your script blows" you might want to say "I didn't really care for this script, and here's why".  

Even if you only get 6 pages in, you can lay out a reason why you stopped reading, and be done with it.  No need to use colorful words or try to increase someone's vocabulary, because it really offers nothing in that regard except to sound sarcastic or condescending, and start new debate threads.  

Reviewers just need to be sure they're attacking the script, if they're attacking anything at all.

Reviewers should also pay attention to WHOSE script they're looking at as well.  Whether or not they do it on purpose, some people have an excellent knack of reading scripts by people who are nowhere in sight.

My take on "morally indefensible" is in regards to the supposed protagonists motives, and how they make him a nearly impossible character to sympathize with.  I didn't see it as being a jab at the writer at all....and to go back to my last comment, he probably won't either.

Okay, I understand how you would read the first ten pages and decide whether it's a turd or not, because that's your way of dealing with screenplays you don't like. I don't disagree with your methods, personally I wouldn't do that, but I respect your opinion.

There is one question though, Dogglebe...

If those racist scripts were such garbage, why did you spend the time reading them, and putting a whole lot of effort into a decent review?

Quoted from Phil Balt!

He would have loved this thread, wouldn't he?

Balt was a colorful but troubled member of the boards who actually reviewed quite a bit, and frequently peppered his criticisms with phraseology like, "This script porks chickens in the butt!!"

Now, not exactly helpful, but certainly amusing at first, if repetitive later.  He had both his fans and his detractors.

But the point is, many of those scripts DID pork chickens in the butt.  And it was nice to have somebody with enough (goat) balls to say it.

I seldom deleted him because, for all his faults, he was honest.

I sometimes sense alot of pixie dust getting fluffed onto scripts in hopes of earning a return read -- look in the mirror and see if you recognize yourself -- but I can guarantee you that Balt was never guilty of that.

If anybody is wondering what I look for in a potential deletion, one of the main things is, "Did they read the script?"

And if it is clear they have -- not just the logline, mind you -- then they have earned the right to critique it as they see fit.  And if you have not read the script, you have not earned the right to question their review.

Does that make sense?

I delete a lot of chatter, but I delete very, very few reviews.  Not even the mean ones.

That's just how I feel about it.  But I see a lot of good points here, too.

Quoted from Stigmata There is one question though, Dogglebe... If those racist scripts were such garbage, why did you spend the time reading them, and putting a whole lot of effort into a decent review?

Stig,

Quoted from dogglebe In the case of these scripts, they're so bad that they're enjoyable to read.  And it's such a learning experience on how not to write a script.  Read five pages of it.  G'wan.  I dare ya!  If it means anything, Clipping the Wings of our White Masters was so bad that even Balt was offended.

Okay, well said.  I can accept that.  I still don't think it's worth putting all the time into with a red marker(figurative or literal), but whatever.

Quoted Text I delete a lot of chatter, but I delete very, very few reviews.  Not even the mean ones.

I agree that even the mean reviews should stay because, as I said earlier, they're still opinions.  I think in cases like the very first review that you showed at the beginning of the thread, it's a case of character over content.  You can say "what is this shit" about their script but you'll look like a jerk and a poor reviewer in the process(especially if that's the only thing you say, which was the case here).  

Quoted from Death Monkey …But is it stands right now, it's pretty worthless, IMO. "Note to self: make script less morally indefensible", you know...

I disagree. I see ways the writer can use this criticism to improve both creatively as well as commercially. You don’t. I’ll leave it at that.


Breanne

Thank you, Greg. My mistake Dogglebe.

Sometimes I get over-excited with these debates and forget what the other person has said, lol. Apologies.

I think it's sad when people use threads like this to make stupid jokes. (A time and place for everything and I don't think this is the place)

Like my post that was deleted about all the childish posts on the forums by adults who act like children. (Can't delete this one bert because I have some more to say haha)

On this topic I was seriously thinking about deleting a few of the guys reviews myself because they call out one simple part and that's usually it.

How about this one.

Quoted Text I started to read your script and realized that you don't have any idea what marines are about. If a marine pointed thier gun and another there would at least be a lot of cussing and maybe some ass kicking.  sorry, but you lost credibility from the get go.  Write what you know.

Where is the review here? Where does he exactly go wrong? When I read that review I felt like saying something.

If you do not read the entire script you should not write a review. Especially something as short as the script above. It's like 22 pages long and quite entertaining given the chance. Audiences in general do not care if it is inaccurate as long as he doesn't say based on a true story.

Do you think movies about famous adventurers and figures like Jesus are as accurate as they should/could be? I don't.

Quoted from Another review to look at I started to read your script and realized that you don't have any idea what marines are about. If a marine pointed thier gun and another there would at least be a lot of cussing and maybe some ass kicking.  sorry, but you lost credibility from the get go.  Write what you know.

I paused at this one also, Wes.  Too short?  Too bitchy?  Too vague?

Yeah, sure.  All of that.  But look again.

I like nixon, and I like his story, but this guy is telling nixon, "Hey -- you gotta scene in this where you lose credibility.  You need to fix that, or you will lose readers, too."

This guy had to dig to find "Expect No Mercy".  He was interested in that script, out of all the series.  And nixon lost him.  

I consider this good feedback, poorly delivered.  That's why I left it.

I leave the reviews because people can see how poor the review is and never have any use for that person in exchanges or in writing. That's why when writers get mad about negative reviews they should be left up so people know how they are.

Most of them leave for a few months and come back as if nothing happened. Sometimes with new names which is a sign of guilt or hiding.

The way I view reviews is if they help you, they are good and if they offer nothing to help then they aren't. It's all about the writer and what he/she is looking for.

Maybe Nixon knew people would enjoy that though. Writing is not about being accurate, it is entertainment.

Was Stoned Patriots accurate to how a talking bong would talk? I mean you can't review like that.

Quoted from Stigmata Okay, I understand how you would read the first ten pages and decide whether it's a turd or not, because that's your way of dealing with screenplays you don't like. I don't disagree with your methods, personally I wouldn't do that, but I respect your opinion.

Three things you need for a good script are strong characters, realistic dialogue and a good story.  If I don't see these things by page ten (or fifteen), you won't have it.  I don't want to read a story that doesn't have these things.

I've read scripts where the only thing I know about the characters are their names.  A lot of teen stories introduce the main characters as the nerd, the athlete and the druggie.  Despite these labels, they act and talk identically to each each other.  Dull stories are told unrealistically.

How am I supposed to read these?

Quoted from Stigmata There is one question though, Dogglebe... If those racist scripts were such garbage, why did you spend the time reading them, and putting a whole lot of effort into a decent review?

It's like watching Plan Nine from Outer Space.  That script is so bad that it's actually enjoyable to read.  I wrote the review as much as a warning to others not to read as much as an invitation to read it.  Reading a bad script can be a great learning experience.  Seeing how bad a script is teaches you not to make the same mistakes when you write.


Phil

Quoted Text I started to read your script and realized that you don't have any idea what marines are about. If a marine pointed thier gun and another there would at least be a lot of cussing and maybe some ass kicking.  sorry, but you lost credibility from the get go.  Write what you know.

Regarding the review in question, I wasn’t really sure how to interpret it. I appreciate all criticism, as long as it’s constructive. His review was so vague; I could really get anything out of it. I asked him to be more specific and he couldn’t deliver.

If the review weren’t on my series’ thread, I would have deleted it.    

Quoted from Old Time Wesley The way I view reviews is if they help you, they are good and if they offer nothing to help then they aren't. It's all about the writer and what he/she is looking for.

This pretty much defines how I judge reviews.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley If you do not read the entire script you should not write a review.

You're dead wrong here, Wes.  I don't need to read an entire script to know that the characters and dialog are unrealistic.  I've seen scripts that have such ridiculous premises that it is painfully obvious that the writer has no idea what he's talking about.  And then there's always the truly, truly ridiculous premises that some people write.  I remember years and years ago, I started reading someone's story about the government creating cybernetic vampires.  The only problem he had with his story was figuring out what happened to the cybernetic parts when the vampires turned to mist.

WTF?????????????????????????????????????

I'm not going to force myself to read a problem-ridden script.  I simply don't have the time or desire to do so.  If I review a script that I partially read, I will point the problems that stopped me from completing it.


Phil

You are in a small class of people I exclude from that argument. You try to help in your reviews after you quit. A lot of people leave a review just to say they left a review and to get brownie points on this "read or you don't get read" thinking.

I do however think it is funny that people take "read or you don't get read" to the point where all they read are shorts. If Don ever locked the shorts board for a week the review boards would be nearly dead. Not totally but pretty close.

That's the same with a lot of other things that happen where they read bits and parts and when they review it they come off as if they didn't because they skimmed it. That's the problem with the review exchange. (When people read a script in return that they know from the get go they will hate but do it anyway because they are desperate for reads.)

When I read something, I really put effort into reading it. If I know the writer and if they want to discuss any specifics they could always ask and like that I can recall it as long as it's still fresh.

Could be helpful if they wanted to know about a specific scene or storyline.

Like I said, reviews are in the eye of the writer it is written for. So if someone says your review was bad and it was his or her script. It was bad no matter how much you put into it.

The thing is, some people are spiteful in their reviews for the sake of being mean.  People write a few scripts, maybe get a few good reviews themselves and they get the big head.  It has happened to me and it has happened to a lot of others.  In fact, I've had to bring myself down with my own reviews and make sure I follow the age-old "positive-negative-positive" formula.

There are plenty of people who use hateful words to tear down new writers or scripts that are lacking in some areas.  We were all new writers at one point.  Go back and read your very first script.  I have, and it wasn't pretty.  Now, think if someone had given you an unnecessary hate-filled review just for the heck of it.  They can be traumatizing to a young writer.  Tell them their mistakes but build them up positively.

If you feel that a script is so bad that you can't bare to read it, either say some constructive to the individual or simply move on.  There have been times when I have passed on reviewing a script just because I knew that I wouldn't have anything positive to say about it.

To be honest, there are several posters on this board whose scripts I refuse to read because of their attitude.  The way you respond says a lot about you.  If your reviews make you out to be a pompous jerk, then I could care less about what you write.

My two cents....

Jonathan

I'll write a harsh review if a script calls for it. I rarely do it as I tend to avoid the bad scripts that most seem to gang up on but if a script is absolutely horrendous, the writer needs to know. Otherwise, they'll continue writing bad scripts thinking they're great. Still, my goal when writing a review is to help the writer get their script to where they want it to be. After tearing a script to pieces, I think it's important to give someone the advice needed to rebuild. With the exception of a few (e.g. The Cabin and those anti-white scripts Phil slams), most scripts aren't completely unsalvagable even if they are really bad.

There's no reason to use profanity in a review.  That's silly, and makes you look silly.

Other than that, the review simply says that the reader had to stop reading, and why.  To me, that's constructive.

But can mods partially edit messages?  I guess that's probably not for the best.  So I'd have to say, cut the review.  If a person has to use profanity to express their opinion, then to a very hot and unpleasant place with 'em.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I disagree. I see ways the writer can use this criticism to improve both creatively as well as commercially. You don�t. I�ll leave it at that. Breanne

Fair enough.


More generally speaking, I think it's probably also worth acknowledging the difference between being honest and being blunt. I got a feeling some people mix up the two, and think the harsher criticism you leave the more honest it is. I mean, I've seen extremely critical reviews and then later read a script from that poster and found myself surprised at how uncritical he/she had been towards their own work.

But I think that has been debated before?


Look at The Child Molester (man I hate myself for plugging that script). A script much worse in pretty much every department, but the reviews, while some are short, deal with something constructive. And even when the criticism pertained to the offensiveness of the script it was done in a way that went beyond "I'm offended, this is bullshit!".

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-drama/m-1178273916/s-new/

There is another side to this that nobody has mentioned.

The ultimate goal of any script is to be made into a film. If the script provokes such an outburst, it is likely the final product would as well, were it to be made.

While we may want to help each other as a scriptwriting community, the kind of gut reaction criticism MAY have it's uses as a barometer of what the average audience member would think of it.

People can be very brutal when criticisng films. It's probablya good idea to develop a thick skin at some stage.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films There is another side to this that nobody has mentioned. The ultimate goal of any script is to be made into a film. If the script provokes such an outburst, it is likely the final product would as well, were it to be made. While we may want to help each other as a scriptwriting community, the kind of gut reaction criticism MAY have it's uses as a barometer of what the average audience member would think of it. People can be very brutal when criticisng films. It's probablya good idea to develop a thick skin at some stage.

Consider Hostel 1 and 2. These films were distributed in the mainstream, and many people found them absolutely revolting. Myself included.

And there are plenty of films outside the mainstream that are far worse. We don't even have to go Troma to find some. Some films thrive in controversy.

Sure, if your goal is make a film that makes a lot of dough, then yeah you're significantly narrowing your audience down by putting offensive content in your scripts. But that's what niche-films are there for.

I think it's fair to let the author know, in your review, that his content might be considered offensive and impair his chances of getting produced, but still, as a single sentence criticism it's not good enough.

Quoted Text I started to read your script and realized that you don't have any idea what marines are about. If a marine pointed thier gun and another there would at least be a lot of cussing and maybe some ass kicking.  sorry, but you lost credibility from the get go.  Write what you know.

I haven't read this script but I feel the comment is worth discussing.

The write what you know comment is very valid if the premise of the story takes place in 'the real world.'  Obviously, you can't write from experience if you're writing about aliens attacking or elves and dwarves but, in the case of a story that involves the US Marines, people will see right through you if you don't know the subject.  At the same time, if you're writing a fantasy piece and have a couple fall in love in it, make you you have some experience in the romance department.  

Virgins shouldn't write erotica.


Phil

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films If the script provokes such an outburst, it is likely the final product would as well, were it to be made.

You are a bit new around here, Dec, and are not quite catching the point about the "outbursts" that ensue following the debut of a truly, truly horrible script.  It is not about "the sort of film" it may or may not end up being.

Exhibit A, an old SS favorite:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-horror/m-1091483938/

I challenge you to find something positive to say about this script.  It's very existence is an aberration of the worst sort, and it deserves every horrid review that it gets.

After glancing at this script, do you still contend that the author should not be told he has written an abomination -- in firm and unmistakable language?

When you post a script for feedback, by default you asking people to read your script and give you feedback.  You take your chances, and do not always get what you want.

And reviewers will express themselves in a variety of ways, and sometimes, sarcasm or "bashing" -- if you can back it up -- is not an unreasonable way to go.  It makes the deletion of reviews a tricky business.

Is there anyone here who feels that a horrible script shouldn't be called horrible? Is that what we're debating?

Quoted Text After glancing at this script, do you still contend that the author should not be told he has written an abomination -- in firm and unmistakable language?

To be honest Bert, I think you are arguing with the wrong person.

My point was that I couldn't care less how nasty some people are about scripts, if it is an honest opinion. I've never said that they shouldn't say it anywhere.

I was saying it might help to develop a thick skin.

And the cabin wasn't even that bad. I just read it, it was quite enjoyable.

At least it didn't bore me which for me is the worst possible thing it could do.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films And the cabin wasn't even that bad. I just read it, it was quite enjoyable.

Hahaha -- you are a sick man, dec.  Maybe an "ass shining in the moonlight" does speak to some people after all...

To bad the author is not around to know he has finally reached his audience.

Quoted from TJ Is there anyone here who feels that a horrible script shouldn't be called horrible? Is that what we're debating?

Yes.  Thank you for stating it so succinctly.  That is kind of what I was after here.

People will frequently jump on a reviewer for saying just that -- sometimes sending me a PM to delete it -- sometimes from their own scripts, which is the hardest to decide what to do.

I was looking for some guidelines -- and have seen many emerge on this thread already -- as too how much "script abuse" constitutes too much from a reviewer.

I think that was the central question, although some sidetracks are obviously inevitable.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films And the cabin wasn't even that bad. I just read it, it was quite enjoyable.

And I've just wet my pants.....


Phil (frightened, not stirred)

Quoted Text Hahaha -- you are a sick man, dec.  Maybe an "A** shining in the moonlight" does speak to some people after all...

It would translate to film well at least.

Quoted Text And the cabin wasn't even that bad. I just read it, it was quite enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong, it's not very good but it isn't the hopeless case I thought it would be.

There are some positives there. The premise; the murders really being part of a campfire story, is workable if somewhat uninspired.








Alright. It's shit.

Quoted from bert Yes.  Thank you for stating it so succinctly.  That is kind of what I was after here. People will frequently jump on a reviewer for saying just that -- sometimes sending me a PM to delete it -- sometimes from their own scripts, which is the hardest to decide what to do. I was looking for some guidelines -- and have seen many emerge on this thread already -- as too how much "script abuse" constitutes too much from a reviewer. I think that was the central question, although some sidetracks are obviously inevitable.

Ah. Well I think as long as you're trashing the script and not the author, it's kosher. If someone feels a script is the worst piece of garbage they've ever read, they should be allowed to say so, so long as they back it up with more than just an expletive.

Quoted from Death Monkey Ah. Well I think as long as you're trashing the script and not the author, it's kosher. If someone feels a script is the worst piece of garbage they've ever read, they should be allowed to say so, so long as they back it up with more than just an expletive.

Great advice.

"I hated this script because of....point A, point B, point C."

No one can get better if they aren't sure where their mistakes are.

I think you can give a negative review with out being cruel or mean.  You can do it in a way that won't be hurtful or degrading to the writer.  There is no need to be cruel in a review to someone who has done nothing wrong.

there are people who put others down because their life didn't turn out the way they wanted it to, so by being mean to others is what they do, and I find this unacceptable, But there is a part of me that actually feels sorry for these people, they must really think their life sucks for them to put others down to make themselves feel better, I do pity them.

I also think people shouldn't stand behind these kind of people, we should stand up to bullies not back them up, I hope I never turn into that mean old man that sits on the deck and yells at all the youngin's around sayin "In my day.......".   I don't want a black hole where my heart should be.

We need to be nicer to one another, even when we criticize them, do it in a constructive and positive way, not mean spirited.  We all have bad days and sometimes say things we don't mean, or we joke around and people take something the wrong way, it happens, I am guilty of this, I speak before I think, but my thoughts are never meant to be hurtful.

I have never tried to be mean or put someone down who did nothing wrong, and if I did I would want someone to let me know that I did, I hope that we think of peoples feelings, I see meanness everyday, where I work, when I'm out, and it makes me sad.

We all get better with constructive critisism, as long as it is given the right way, being is a jerk is not okay, siding with a bully is not ok, not sticking up for others when they are getting bullied is not ok.

So yeah, I'm a dork I guess, I try not to be mean or cruel to people who have done nothing wrong, and I will continue to live my life like that no matter how much of an idiot people think I am for it.

We should define bullying then. To me, it's not bullying saying "you're script is horrible and here's why...".

Bullies don't so the "and here's why" part, I've found. At least they didn't to me in the fourth grade.

To me a bully someone who puts you down out of meanness, so to say " I think you're ugly cause you have a big nose" that being a bully, they gave a reason, but still........

[EDIT]

stupid comparison I know, what I have meant to say is, we can learn from each other in a positive way, we can be nice to one another, it isn't hard, I don't think you need to blow smoke up some one's butt, but just be constructive in a polite way, if someone is being a jerk, hell ya call em on it, I will, there should be zero tolerance for cruelty.

Quoted from The boy who could fly To me a bully someone who puts you down out of meanness, so to say " I think you're ugly cause you have a big nose" that being a bully, they gave a reason, but still........ [EDIT] stupid comparison I know, what I have meant to say is, we can learn from each other in a positive way, we can be nice to one another, it isn't hard, I don't think you need to blow smoke up some one's butt, but just be constructive in a polite way, if someone is being a jerk, hell ya call em on it, I will, there should be zero tolerance for cruelty.

Yeah but the difference is saying someone is ugly is personal. We're putting stuff out there to be reviewed by others. Our scritps. We're asking for their honest to God opinion.

If this was a beauty pagent site, and we were asking to have our looks reviewed then someone is bound think you're ugly at some point. Or you'd risk that someone thought you were ugly because you have a big nose (the non-deicitic you, mind you!), and well, they should tell you, because you're asking to be told what people think.

I agree, being constructive is key. And you can be contructive and still speak your mind, I think. Saying "your script is horrible, and here's why" is contructive even if it is rough around the edges.

Quoted from Death Monkey I agree, being constructive is key. And you can be contructive and still speak your mind, I think. Saying "your script is horrible, and here's why" is contructive even if it is rough around the edges.

Agreed, totally, you can do this and not be mean, take a look at MGJ's review of one of my scripts called spoiled, he hated it and said why, but he was not being mean or cruel, he said his thoughts and why he hated it, but he didn't put me down, and it is a harsh review, one of the harshest I have gotten, but my feelings weren't hurt and although I may disagree with some of what he said he was honest in a non mean spirited way.

OK, Jordan.  Now it's your turn.

If we were to ignore the naughty words for just a moment -- I need you to tell me how this:

Quoted from A review that Jordan thinks is good and fair I'm not gonna be so diplomatic as the others.  This was bad on many levels.  Being sick and twisted is not a virtue in and of itself.  Whoever you are, you need to learn this.     If there was a point or a moral to this story then I would have been open-minded about it.

Is really so much different that this:  

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

Both judge the story in exactly the same way, yet you found one helpful and the other offensive.

What are you using for a yardstick here?  Not arguing.  Genuinely asking.

Quoted from mgj In fairness this was competently written.  Those were my honest feelings though so I have to stick by them.  Just one question - what exactly was your inspiration for this piece.  On second thought, I don't want to know.

Happy.  He still said something positive

No.  Not happy yet.

That was an edit added later AND you are taking the easy out.

In fact, I think Mike's review for Spoiled attacks the author more than the one you got all bent out of shape about.  Mike is giving you nothing at all to improve your story if you actually think about it.  Bryan, on the other hand, is telling you specifically what he did not like.

See what I mean?

Do you think your bias against a reviewer -- say, bryan -- might taint your views of his comments?  Making them appear worse than they actually are?

[Edit:  I like Mike.  This ain't a bust on him.  Just a good example.]

yeah, of course, all his posts to me were bull, and so what if MGJ edited, he is not a jerk, he hated my script, but decided to say something else after, which means he is not doing it to be mean.

I just don't like it when people are bullies, and people can put me down all they want for it, I'm not gonna change that view, it is wrong to be cruel to one another.

You probably think I'm a jerk Bert, and ya, that upsets me cause I do like and respect you, but I do disagree with you on this subject.

and by the way I just cut out about 5 curse words...LOL, sorry, just so ya know I am learning,

Jordan, you are getting me wrong here.

I am not busting your chops at all.  Not even a little.

You entered the conversation, and you gave an example, and I was asking you some questions.

If it came off as harsh, that was only because I was typing quickly.  I usually compose my posts with a little more thought.

I was just curious.  Unless Tuesday is beat up on Jordan day and I missed it.


[EDIT:  Perhaps it would help if I lost the avatar with the big canon haha]

I understand that Bert, I DO have personal grievances with people who are mean to others, and I don't tolerate it.

This guy who has made the post that started this thread bothered me right away, and a part of me is upset I didn't say anything sooner, maybe all this wouldn't have happened.

I think when you feel someone is being mean you should say something, if that person says he said it wrong, it was misinterpeted, that would solve a lot of problems, and in no way am I innocent, I have said a lot of stupid things on this site, and if I am called on it I would apologize or retort.

And no, beat up on Jordan day is Thursdays  

Quoted from The boy who could fly I just don't like it when people are bullies, and people can put me down all they want for it, I'm not gonna change that view, it is wrong to be cruel to one another. You probably think I'm a jerk Bert, and ya, that upsets me cause I do like and respect you, but I do disagree with you on this subject.

Jordan, I really think you’re getting carried away with the victim mentality here. No one is putting you down for being against bullying. And no one is standing by a bully here. We just don’t happen to agree with you that Bryan is a bully.

I don’t agree with Bryan’s language. But I think his criticism is entirely fair. That obviously doesn’t make me someone who stands by a bully because I don’t see Bryan as a bully. I see him as blunt. I also see him as misguided in thinking that a reviewer’s function here is the same as a movie critic. We are writers reviewing other writers for the purpose of helping each other improve, not critics paid by a media to critique films as a public service. So I think Bryan is wrong to review with that mindset. But I don’t think he’s a bully.


Breanne

Here's my belated 2 cents:

A job of a story editor, script doctor or script analyser is not to crush a writer into pulp to a point where they are scared to write again. The job of a story editor (and in our cases here, a script reviewer) should be to point out what works and what doesn't work in a screenplay.

Look, I know a writer and a story editor. The writer had a script accepted into a workshop with industry experts. They workshopped his script, gave incredible feedback and sent him off to do a re-write. One week later (way too short of a time), the writer returned for a follow up. What happened next was a disaster. The script had not improved and obviously the writer had not listened to the story editor at all. The editor was so upset, he tore into the screenplay like there was no tomorrow. Then he tore into the writer. And then he threw the script at the writer and stormed out. This happened infront of an audience of 50 or so people. The writer was so destroyed, that he has never written again and the next time he bumped into the story editor, the editor got down on his knees and apologised.

Why did I tell this story? I'd like to see a more professional approach at reviewing. We need to practice a professional approach with each other because we are each other's peers. I agree that there are some really bad scripts on here, but it's the job of an editor (or in our case, a reviewer) to be professional in their response. Again, we are not trying to destroy the writer - but telling them, in an honest opinion, why something doesn't work. We are not in the job (or volunteering) to potentially destroy a writer before they blossom, but to guide and help the writer.

I have no problem being brutely honest - I would rather have that than someone waxing my car, but it needs to be professional. As for the review in question, there should never be a reason to swear when reviewing material. It just makes you look like an amatuer. Also, and this is a BIG lesson to learn in critique people's work - is that you are not the writer, therefore it's not your job to tell them what to do or give them suggestions... because the moment you do that, it becomes your idea. Let the writer's figure that out themselves.

So, in summary, from what I read in the quotations from Bert, I would definitely re-word the review. The reviewer stopped at page 6 after deeming the hero morally dishonest. But what happens if the rest of the script explains why the hero did this? What if there is a thematic reason to the events? What happens if our POV changes and it's an anti-hero tragic story? I think it was a little naive of the reviewer to stop at page 6 and make those comments without reading the rest of the script, or even the first act (but that's just my personal opinion). But the biggest thing for me, is that it should have been worded differently and give the writer a chance to answer. Why did the hero commit this act? What does it add to the theme, character arc, plot? Questions like this will get the writer thinking instead of crawling into a box and dying.

My (long) humble opinion.

Stew

Quoted from dogglebe You're dead wrong here, Wes.  I don't need to read an entire script to know that the characters and dialog are unrealistic.  I've seen scripts that have such ridiculous premises that it is painfully obvious that the writer has no idea what he's talking about.  And then there's always the truly, truly ridiculous premises that some people write.  I remember years and years ago, I started reading someone's story about the government creating cybernetic vampires.  The only problem he had with his story was figuring out what happened to the cybernetic parts when the vampires turned to mist. WTF????????????????????????????????????? I'm not going to force myself to read a problem-ridden script.  I simply don't have the time or desire to do so.  If I review a script that I partially read, I will point the problems that stopped me from completing it. Phil

Which brings up the issue I have. Do we, as S.S. reviewers, take the stance of a producer or a story editor, script doctor/analyser.

If we have our producer's hats on - then by all means, I will stop reading after page 10 if it's crap. Honestly. And I'll tell the writer why (professionally).

If I am story editing a script, then it's my obligation to finish the story and give an honest critique to the writer. Many people are paid to do this, and wouldn't stop after page 10.

What are we...?

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Jordan, I really think you�re getting carried away with the victim mentality here. No one is putting you down for being against bullying. And no one is standing by a bully here. We just don�t happen to agree with you that Bryan is a bully. I don�t agree with Bryan�s language. But I think his criticism is entirely fair. That obviously doesn�t make me someone who stands by a bully because I don�t see Bryan as a bully. I see him as blunt. I also see him as misguided in thinking that a reviewers function here is the same as a movie critic. We are writers reviewing other writers for the purpose of helping each other improve, not critics paid by a media to critique films as a public service. So I think Bryan is wrong to review with that mindset. But I don�t think he�s a bully. Breanne

You make a good point, but I have to disagree, I think being a bully is putting others down in a mean way, I know bullies, I know them well, I can tell by they way they use their words, it's instinct for me, I suck at a lot of things, but not at noticing this kind of behavior, I see it day to day, starts off small but it gets bigger and bigger the more we accept it the worse it gets.

I think what I am trying to say is that, if you feel you need to be harsh in your review, be harsh, just don't be so jerkish(is that a word, probably not)

My feelings for this subject will never change, every time I have kept my mouth shut to a degrading or mean spirited comment I kick myself, but no more.  I will stop using curse words and re read my posts several times before I post them, but I live by my heart, I live by what I think is right and wrong.  Heck, I like a lot of the people here who I'm pretty sure now dislike me a lot, and I hope that we can all get along, be hard on a script, speak your mind, just do it in a way that the writer feels more like 'I need to work on this" rather than "I suck and I should quit"

Quoted from The boy who could fly You make a good point, but I have to disagree, I think being a bully is putting others down in a mean way, I know bullies, I know them well, I can tell by they way they use their words, it's instinct for me, I suck at a lot of things, but not at noticing this kind of behavior, I see it day to day, starts off small but it gets bigger and bigger the more we accept it the worse it gets. I think what I am trying to say is that, if you feel you need to be harsh in your review, be harsh, just don't be so jerkish(is that a word, probably not) My feelings for this subject will never change, every time I have kept my mouth shut to a degrading or mean spirited comment I kick myself, but no more.  I will stop using curse words and re read my posts several times before I post them, but I live by my heart, I live by what I think is right and wrong.  Heck, I like a lot of the people here who I'm pretty sure now dislike me a lot, and I hope that we can all get along, be hard on a script, speak your mind, just do it in a way that the writer feels more like 'I need to work on this" rather than "I suck and I should quit"

Jordan, I don’t see that the reviewer is “putting the writer down in a mean way.” I see an honest review. I agree with Heretic and others that there’s absolutely no reason to use profanity in a review. I wouldn’t personally take a reviewer seriously if he didn’t have the writing skills enough to review without profanity.

So I agree Bryan was wrong to use profanity. But I don’t see that his words were any sort of personal attack on the author. I see his words as brutally honest. If I tell a writer that I don’t think his script has any chance of selling without a specific change, that’s just my opinion. But I don’t see how it’s bullying.


Breanne

Quoted from Breanne Mattson Jordan, I don’t see that the reviewer is “putting the writer down in a mean way.” I see an honest review. I agree with Heretic and others that there’s absolutely no reason to use profanity in a review. I wouldn’t personally take a reviewer seriously if he didn’t have the writing skills enough to review without profanity. So I agree Bryan was wrong to use profanity. But I don’t see that his words were any sort of personal attack on the author. I see his words as brutally honest. If I tell a writer that I don’t think his script has any chance of selling without a specific change, that’s just my opinion. But I don’t see how it’s bullying. Breanne

I just think we disagree on bullying, for me all the reviews that this member has posted are not helpful, I got this feeling, after about the fourth one, I knew the kind of person this was, it's a gut feeling, I'm good at this, I really am.

This was not his meanest comment on a script, it was just the last one that did it for me.

Anyways we don't agree on this, but that's okay, I do think it's a good discussion, and heck, maybe people on both sides will learn something.

Quoted from The boy who could fly I just think we disagree on bullying, for me all the reviews that this member has posted are not helpful, I got this feeling, after about the fourth one, I knew the kind of person this was, it's a gut feeling, I'm good at this, I really am. This was not his meanest comment on a script, it was just the last one that did it for me. Anyways we don't agree on this, but that's okay, I do think it's a good discussion, and heck, maybe people on both sides will learn something.

The problem for me with calling him a bully, Jordan, is that I can’t find him guilty of being a bully even based on your own definition. I’m only talking about this specific review. But his other reviews, I agree, aren’t always particularly useful. I often find him harsh and abrupt - and not always right. I also sometimes find him to say things that probably need to be said.

I’m sure your gut feelings are accurate but, unfortunately, I find the label of bully itself to be harsh and will need more to go on than that. I think bullies are the lowest forms of life on Earth and I’m not prepared to throw Bryan in that category yet. So maybe we do disagree on what a bully is.


Breanne

Let it stand.

I reviewed a script here titled SIX SESSIONS and prior to my review it had a prior review similar to the one being discussed here; meaning a very short review, and the reviewer not reading any further for one reason. I read SIX SESSIONS all the way through (found I agreed with the first reviewer) and had a tough time reading the story. However I found a thread of story which to comment on and I did.

So let the two liners stand and let someone else take a stab at it.

Quoted from Breanne I don�t see that the reviewer is �putting the writer down in a mean way.� I see an honest review.

Quoted from Jordan ...all the reviews that this member has posted are not helpful, I got this feeling, after about the fourth one, I knew the kind of person this was...

Everybody is going to express themselves in a different way when they review a script.  Especially on a writing board -- people will have a unique voice.

Does this bryan guy come off as something of an ass.  Oh, yes.  For sure he does, Jordan.

But is what he is saying without value -- unfounded and worthy of a quick delete?  No.  I watch his reviews, and most do contain a nasty grain of hard, cold truth.

And that is how he writes.  On a writing board, where the written word is the coin of the realm.

Is it fair to delete bryan's reviews -- and those like them -- to spare the tender feelings of the author -- when he speaks the truth -- as he sees it?

He is reviewing scripts.  And that is why we are here.

Maybe he even thinks he is being helpful.  Who are you to say he doesn't, regardless of your well-founded hunches to the contrary?

Quoted from MacDuff What are we...?

The honest answer to that is that we are readers. Not everyone cares about selling right now so reading it from a producers standpoint will never help the matter and reading it as a script doctor may or may not be good either.

Read the script, tell the writer what you as a reader think and leave it at that.

We're not being paid or forced to read screenplays so if you are reading stuff to bash it like a lot of people do, you just might be an ass.

Some things I say sometimes come off as mean but are never meant that way. That brings up the point of the internet leaving a lot of room for misrepresentation.

You could read a simple line as an attack or offensive when the writer of that line meant something harmless.

Quoted from bert In fact, I think Mike's review for Spoiled attacks the author more than the one you got all bent out of shape about.  Mike is giving you nothing at all to improve your story if you actually think about it.  Bryan, on the other hand, is telling you specifically what he did not like. [Edit:  I like Mike.  This ain't a bust on him.  Just a good example.]

Not my shining moment as a reviewer, I agree but I'll fully own up to it.  Basically I reacted emotionally to something and hit the post button without thinking.  I had never read anything like that before and it was shocking to me.  

I suppose I, and Bryan, are no worse than someone who posts a review saying that a script was 'awesome man' (I see that alot).

Obviously Jordan and I are okay about it now.  If I had taken that jab and then went and hid I'm sure things would be different though.  On it's own the review can really only be taken one way - as an attack on the writer which is why I backpeddled a bit.

The morel I learned was to take a step back for a few moments and clear my head before posting something (Michael Richards, if you're out there, take note).  I've done it several times since and have often ended up either deleting what I wrote or finding that my opinion has changed.  I think if we all did that then we wouldn't get so many reviews like the one in question.

I can't really defend my post, especially now that I see it again (Thanks Bert).  By that same rationale, I can't defend Bryan's either.  I think he's guilty of doing the same thing as me - lashing out before thinking.

Should his review be deleted - That's a tough one.  Technically he gave a reason for his opinion so I suppose it has to stand.  Really though, like mine, it was more of a condemnation.