Quoted from cloroxmartini Don't know if it's directed at me or not.

No -- not this time.  And you've gotten better about keeping your acerbic side in check, actually -- unless it is genuinely warranted.

Quoted from skylightlynch Loglines are essential in getting your script read by either a Studio Exec or an Investor...

Heh...it was you, actually.  But not that you technically did anything wrong, mind you, though you did have quite a few in a row, back-to-back.  I raise the question because lots of people have been doing it lately.

But I will use one of yours as an example:

For the script about anti-religion activist "Madalyn Murray-O'Hair", your review of the logline was (and I parapharse) "What a silly name.  Why use that name?"

It's a bio pic, about a real person, and that was her name.  It was not meaningful advice, so I gave it the boot.

Quoted from mcornetto I think comments on the logline are valid criticism of the author's writing.  They should stay.

What about the above example, Cornetto?  Would you argue against the deletion of that one?  (Not argumentative...just checking where you stand).  

Quoted from bert What about the above example, Cornetto?  Would you argue against the deletion of that one?  (Not argumentative...just checking where you stand).

ANY indication of why someone has passed on reading my script is helpful, even if I choose to deem it an anomaly later.

EDIT:  I would draw the line when one does not really include information.  Like it says great logline - in which case they should be reading the script - or if it says something like this logline sucks.   The O Hare example was a good one.  This person didn't know who the subject of the script was.  That's important.

It is a standard practice that, just like our moronic political figure heads, the writer gets another writer to write their log lines for them.  Why? Cos' they're hard to write.  You'd be surprised at how many screenwriters, who write kick ass scripts, can't write log lines.  They opt out of them and have other people write them.  

Just like Obama's moronic ass... When's the last time you think he wrote his own speech or said a word out of turn?  Any president, ecluding George W, for that matter.  He said enough stupid shit to warrant a free ride.

But, yeah... Log Lines are a hard sell.  I am ardently not that good at them myself.  I try to use the 6 rules of what goes into a log line and adhere to them, though. So, I scrape by.  But keeping with the theme of the thread -- Axe those post.  If this were "Simplyloglines" it might be different... But it's not.  It's "Simplyscripts" for a reason.  Read the scripts, comment on the bulk of what the writer is offering and not a sum.  Simple and clean.  

Hey Bert,
Hot topic this has become. As far as the "Madalyn Murray-O'Hair" post goes. Okay fair enough. But when I said "what a silly name" I was thinking it was a made up character name. . . then i clicked on it . . . read the logline and commented that the script sounded really interesting. I just recommended a possible title change

And if anyone is interested, the script covers an interesting subject and is worth checking out

Quoted from skylightlynch Hot topic this has become.

Yeah, that happens sometimes when I ask for ideas about the actual maintenance of the boards. And some topics have been much hotter -- everybody has a little moderator in them, I suppose.
  
Thing is, most members really do want the board to be a useful resource, and some have very strong opinions about what that entails.  

Glad to know you do not feel singled out -- at least, you do not seem to -- that was not my intent.

Whether or not reviews of loglines in and of themselves are appropriate or useful has not really been discussed before, as far as I can recall.

They are kind of along the same lines as reviewers who have nothing to say but, "I could not read this because of the horrible format."

Those sorts of reviews are kind of discouraged, too.

But the author should know that, so I will let one or two of those stay -- though there is no reason a script needs a dozen similar posts.

And reviewers who only focus on scripts with poor format -- script after script -- do become kind of tedious.

Quoted from Baltis. It is a standard practice that, just like our moronic political figure heads, the writer gets another writer to write their log lines for them.  Why? Cos' they're hard to write.  You'd be surprised at how many screenwriters, who write kick ass scripts, can't write log lines.  They opt out of them and have other people write them.

It's true, loglines are extremely hard to write, but it's worthwhile for a writer to at least try to understand and write them as well as they can.

My reasoning here, is that if you can place your whole script neatly within the confines of a quality logline, you probably know your script and its essence very well. That fact, and even through the process of generating many loglines that seem inadequate, you will gain insight into the work.

On the other hand, even if you come up with something completely brilliant and acceptable, someone else, who's not so close to the work, might even be able to nail it even more and to a point where you say, "Why the hell didn't I think of that?"

The reason there is that we often can't see the forest through the trees.

My answer is then that the writer should try individually, but also offer it for consultation with people you know the quality of their work and insight and respect for their opinion. It's always grey/gray isn't it?

Sandra

I think logline comments should be treated just like script comments. If someone says "this logline sucks" delete it, but if someone says "this logline sucks, it tells me absolutely nothing about your script, has numerous typos and grammatical errors" and things like that then it should stay.

I can honestly say I've never read or not read a script onsite because of the logline.
Sure I'll look at it but it doesn't influence me at all.
Maybe because I struggle to write decent ones myself.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I think logline comments should be treated just like script comments. If someone says "this logline sucks" delete it, but if someone says "this logline sucks, it tells me absolutely nothing about your script, has numerous typos and grammatical errors" and things like that then it should stay.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It would be a huge mistake to delete helpful reviews of loglines.

I say delete them, but notify the poster.

If the newbies continue to post short and useless reviews, then the newer newbies will see that as "how shit runs down" and they'll continue these types of reviews.

Isn't there something in the rules about useless reviews anyways?

Quoted from Lightfoot I say delete them, but notify the poster. If the newbies continue to post short and useless reviews, then the newer newbies will see that as "how shit runs down" and they'll continue these types of reviews. Isn't there something in the rules about useless reviews anyways?

Fuck!!! This post is NOT DIRECTED AT NEWBIES!!!  Fuck me!!!!

Sandra

My bad... no one mind the dumbass here.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Fuck me!!!!

Since you're twisting my arm here, Sandra, okay then. When? Where?

Quoted from Tommyp Couldn't have said it better myself. It would be a huge mistake to delete helpful reviews of loglines.

I'd say in most cases it's up to the writer. Your script, your choice.

If someone asked me to delete a review/comment, in most cases I would do it.

Again this is supposed to be a helpful resource for unproduced writers and you cannot help with a logline without reading the script. In that case the person will actually be able to do something with the review/comments.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley Again this is supposed to be a helpful resource for unproduced writers and you cannot help with a logline without reading the script.

The following is an excellent example of why the above isn't true.

Quoted from bert For the script about anti-religion activist "Madalyn Murray-O'Hair", your review of the logline was (and I parapharse) "What a silly name.  Why use that name?"

The very fact that this reader had no clue about O'Hare  gives the author of this script precious information - even though the reader has not read the script.