Quoted from rc1107 SKIER #3

#3?

#3???????

#1!!!!!!!!!

C'mon now!!!

Quoted from Dreamscale Anthony, couldn't agree more with your words.  I also was thinking that Conz had recently said that he was sorry for not reading any OWC scripts yet and was going to get caught up...apparently he chose not to do that, and still has a big fat ZERO reads, which there just isn't any excuse for. Time to pay the piper!

No, you're wrong, Jeff.  He read and commented on one: his own.

Coulda been worse Jeff - the character could have been named DRUNK SKI POSER #3...

(0:

Yep, it can always be worse.  Sad thing for me is that it continues to get worse...

Quoted from ajr It is 100% lazy writing for someone who's not already in the business. Writers don't cast films and a professional reader or director or producer will think you're trying to cast the role. What else could they think - that you're saying "hey, let's get a third-rate actor who only looks like this famous person I just described"? No, they're going to think that you want that actor to play the role. Second, casting directors who read the project do not want an image in their head of a particular actor or actress, otherwise it ruins the read and does their job for them...

I don't think we're talking about casting instructions here.  I think we're saying our character shares aspects with a celebrity and that's quite different.

Gem (45), think Cher before the surgery.  

We aren't saying the character should be cast as Cher but we are using Cher as a visual reference of our character.

If done correctly using celebs in your script can really enhance the reading experience.  And I don't see it as lazy at all - just a different style.  

Michael,

What you're doing and the question posed by the original poster, which is "think George Clooney" are two different things.

Anthony,

Where does the original poster say "think George Clooney"?


EDIT:  And even if it was just "think George Clooney" without any qualification, if it was there to present visual information and it was done in a way that works for the story then there shouldn't be any issue with it.  I  don't think the use of a celebrity's name automatically indicates you are trying to cast the role.  Nor do I think that's the intention of the statement made by the writers of the book mentioned (though of course it could be).

ive never done it, nor do i have any intention in doing it, just wanted feedback... and damn, got a lot.  thanks

That's great, Conz...now go read and comment on this past OWC scripts that you said you were going to read and comment on.

If you have time to post such questions, what's the hold up on your OWC reads?  How many posts did you receive with feedback?  How many did you provide?

What are we missing here?

Michael, per my earlier post, are you saying that when referencing an actor in your description, you're saying that that the character resembles that person?  As in, people would actually stop and wonder whether or not that is actually that actor?

If so, as I said earlier, that's downright laughable 99% of the time. I'm shocked you would encourage...or better yet, not discourage such descriptions.

Quoted from Dreamscale Michael, per my earlier post, are you saying that when referencing an actor in your description, you're saying that that the character resembles that person?  As in, people would actually stop and wonder whether or not that is actually that actor?

We are talking about a visual read here and if it works to use think *actor* for you to describe and it works for those that read your script - then I don't see any problem with using it at all (even if it is for pure physical resemblance).

For some people in some circumstances it's going to work.  And I don't think you can make an argument that it never does - because you'd be wrong.

Well, I have been wrong before and I have absolutely no problem admitting when that happens, but it's not now.

There are very few who will appreciate this kind of description...and many who will despise it and literally stop reading right there.  It's amateur hour 101, and if you honestly don't know or realize that, then I'm not sure what else to say.

It's poor advice to doll out. Period.

Quoted from Dreamscale That's great, Conz...now go read and comment on this past OWC scripts that you said you were going to read and comment on. If you have time to post such questions, what's the hold up on your OWC reads?  How many posts did you receive with feedback?  How many did you provide? What are we missing here? Michael, per my earlier post, are you saying that when referencing an actor in your description, you're saying that that the character resembles that person?  As in, people would actually stop and wonder whether or not that is actually that actor? If so, as I said earlier, that's downright laughable 99% of the time. I'm shocked you would encourage...or better yet, not discourage such descriptions.

dude, i never even know that contest existed before i posted an old throwaway script i had.  it took me 2 minutes to submit.  i didnt realize i had to read every submission, no one had a gun to your head to read mine.  I know i have to read if i submit now, b/c you've so kindly reminded me, and i will.  I didnt say i was gonna go back and read submissions for a contest that is over.  Jesus Christ.  I'm not looking to get banned, or get into flame wars, but back off.

what is this a witch hunt?  relax.

I had a script that i thought applied (it didnt) so i submit it.  when i wrote it, it sure as hell didnt take 7 days.  i submit it the day before teh contest was over, literally the first time i ever saw that forum.  what do you guys want me to do?  I apologize i broke a couple of rules, is that good enough?

Quoted from Conz dude, i never even know that contest existed before i posted an old throwaway script i had.  it took me 2 minutes to submit.  i didnt realize i had to read every submission, no one had a gun to your head to read mine.  I know i have to read if i submit now, b/c you've so kindly reminded me, and i will.  I didnt say i was gonna go back and read submissions for a contest that is over.  Jesus Christ.  I'm not looking to get banned, or get into flame wars, but back off.

Hello Conz! Send me a PM if you get in a fright with a "crazy" that passes your path. (But that might be me after all. Big smiles). ...

Just so you know, the OWC is meant to be a challenge. No gun to your head. It's just you against you. Mono eh Mono. (Is that correct?" Well, sortov. ...

How much time you spend on it is entirely up to you. Two minutes, two days, or two weeks compressed into one week-- however you might want to spell it: the point is that the challenge always is meant to challenge. There's no winner because:

You are a winner already if you participate.

I understand how you feel. People here can get really passionate about their work and they sometimes forget where they've been. We're all and very often like that; so please accept their apologies. No harm intended-- just frustrated hard boiled writers trying to do their job. We're all the same.

Sandra

Conz, this is very confusing.  You're supposedly a board member, right?  Assuming that's true, how could you not read a single line of what the OWC is?  How is that even possible?  It's not, obviously.

But after the fact, numerous members called you out on the fact that you reviewed your own fucking script, but not a single other one.  Right?  At that point, you said you were sorry and would read some of the entries ASAP.  That never happened.  People read old OWC scripts all the time. This one isn't even that old.

And during the reading phase, you had to see all the people reading and reviewing all the scripts, including yours, right?  What the Hell did you think was going on?  Are you seriously claiming complete ignorance?

You know, you're actually very lucky, because if this was indeed a witch hunt, you'd either be burned at the stake or drowned at the bottom of a lake.

Bless your lucky stars...