All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Jeff - got to remember that peeps have different perspectives on quality. There were scripts I loved that others hated and vice versa. Sure the same was true for you.
Well, yeah...exactly what I've said over and over, but quality should be universal - one may not like a certain something, but if it's quality, they should respect that. And, if it's not quality, that is pretty obvious, but too many peeps here (who post downright idiotic feedback and/or punish a quality script for 1 thing or another while not even getting or seeing the quality) don't get that.
I mean, let's be serious...I could (and would love to) call out several idiots here who have praised obviously very poor scripts. Some go so far as to say, "I have absolutely no idea what is going on here but I really enjoyed the read." Really?
Other quote "rules" they don't even understand over and over and completely miss the real reason something is incorrect. They just don't get it, but they think they do...basically, they're clueless and that's a dangerous reviewer.
We all have different senses of story and we all have different standards for screenwriting. e.g., you strongly dislike unfilmables and asides. I think they can play a very important part in story telling, etc. etc. So where you would see a problem, I would see a gem - and vice versa. The differences in opinion on scripts as not a failure of a one reviewer over another - there just differences.
Totally agree about story being good/bad/nonexistent/etc. is completely a personal opinion, and have said this over and over and over (actually, just recently on this very same thread, but the dolt I was saying it to, just couldn't wrap his head around it).
As to "things" like asides and unfilmables, yeah, it's a personal preference, but the real problem with SS writers using them, is that they don't understand what's right or wrong with using them, and when to and when not to. Hell, many don't even know they're writing an aside or unfilmable!
I believe most differences of opinions of reviewers are truly "failures" of some reviewers, because some reviewers are clueless or downright idiots. And I do honestly mean exactly that and will stand by it.
I get what Jeff is saying. I’d like to think I’m a decent writer, and that my taste in scripts matter. I know a good story when I see it. I know good writing when I see it. Personally, there are scripts I read that others praise and I’m like “wtf are they thinking? This sucked!” So, perhaps my opinion, or Jeff’s, carries more weight than others who have only been writing for a few months.
Or maybe it doesn’t.
Usually when I see reviews that leave me scratching my head I don’t feel it’s my duty to call it out. I’m the end, I may not respect the other persons opinion, but my review, and others, should tell the writer that somethings not working with their script. If you have two glowing reviews and a dozen bad ones, that should be clue enough.
I know of a few writers/reviewers that love almost everything I write. Even the bad stuff. I just kinda laugh and I’m like no way in hell us this good. So if you get a good review but the rest are bad then chances are it needs some work. Far be it from me to call anyone out on it. But that doesn’t mean Jeff, or anyone else, shouldn’t. As long as you’re respectful.
You know damn well when you've written a good script or a bad one and when you know it sucks arse, you know what kind of reviews you should be getting.
Story and humor, though are subjective and they always will be.
There are very, very few universally good stories...and by very, very few, I'm referring to the percentage of all stories, not the actual number.
I've read them all now. There's quite a few I'm going to mark down as excellent and (for me) there's no clear winner, instead there's several which really stand out.
In general, folks did a lot better than my own entry and I'm very impressed. Well done!
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
OK, Dave, here's the 2nd quote I mentioned last night. The burgers got the best of me!
Well, yeah...exactly what I've said over and over, but quality should be universal - one may not like a certain something, but if it's quality, they should respect that. And, if it's not quality, that is pretty obvious, but too many peeps here (who post downright idiotic feedback and/or punish a quality script for 1 thing or another while not even getting or seeing the quality) don't get that.
I mean, let's be serious...I could (and would love to) call out several idiots here who have praised obviously very poor scripts. Some go so far as to say, "I have absolutely no idea what is going on here but I really enjoyed the read." Really?
Other quote "rules" they don't even understand over and over and completely miss the real reason something is incorrect. They just don't get it, but they think they do...basically, they're clueless and that's a dangerous reviewer.
Totally agree about story being good/bad/nonexistent/etc. is completely a personal opinion, and have said this over and over and over (actually, just recently on this very same thread, but the dolt I was saying it to, just couldn't wrap his head around it).
As to "things" like asides and unfilmables, yeah, it's a personal preference, but the real problem with SS writers using them, is that they don't understand what's right or wrong with using them, and when to and when not to. Hell, many don't even know they're writing an aside or unfilmable!
I believe most differences of opinions of reviewers are truly "failures" of some reviewers, because some reviewers are clueless or downright idiots. And I do honestly mean exactly that and will stand by it.
Quality is not universal, at least not the perception of it and it will never be. Surely you thought Siskel and Ebert were both competent film critics - but most times one had a thumb up and one had a thumb down.
I hate Rap music, contemporary art, Picasso, etc. etc. - others drool over the quality. Who's right? (rhetorical question - I am of course). Scripts and stories are no different. I'll see someone rave over a zombie script and I'm thinking - really? really? - it's the same foking story that's been told a thousand times. The point being our perception of story has to impact all perspective on scripts. I mentioned it before, but one script in this OWC that I thought was deliciously paced others found dull.
I read the script for Moonlight - thought it was horrible!! Oh - it won best picture. I didn't care for A Quiet Place and thought the story was flawed. You loved it. i.e., when reading that script, we're going to start with different frameworks/perceptions.
Long winded way of saying there is no reason to expect that too otherwise solid reviewers will not come up with polar opposite reviews of a script because the perception of quality is not universal. That is what I see most often in the comments.
Secondly, all of the format, rules, style, etc is subservient to story. The script that, at least based on the comments so far that is going to come out top in this challenge - you hated. IMO, it had a great story with a writer taking some chances on style. Some peeps loved the style, some didn't - but almost all peeps loved the story and found the script compelling. Conversely, it was pretty much in your trash bin. I'm not using this as an example where I think you're wrong. I'm using it as an example to show that the perception of quality is not universal. When this script takes the challenge down despite the fact that you hated it, it ought to give you pause to think about whether your premise about quality is correct or not.
I've read them all now. There's quite a few I'm going to mark down as excellent and (for me) there's no clear winner, instead there's several which really stand out.
In general, folks did a lot better than my own entry and I'm very impressed. Well done!
I have a top 3 with no daylight between them. If I had to pick one, it'd be a difficult task.
I'm nearly through but I'm close enough there to form the opinion this has been the strongest OWC in a good while. When I saw 28 scripts appearing I kinda worried, but there's a good crop at the top and the rest ain't too shabby either. Nice to see so many of the old guard around too, I'm pretty certain the strength of the work is connected.
I was hoping to get in on a real, honest-to-goodness One Week Challenge, but the timing was awful. For me. The 25 of you who entered obviously are fine.
Eventually came up with an idea on Wednesday, but could not get a block of time together to actually write it.
As to "things" like asides and unfilmables, yeah, it's a personal preference, but the real problem with SS writers using them, is that they don't understand what's right or wrong with using them, and when to and when not to. Hell, many don't even know they're writing an aside or unfilmable!
There’s another side to the so-called ‘unfilmables’ argument. And that’s the fact that one line – that some class as unfilmable – can tell an actor so much more than what to do at that exact moment. Used well, they can give actors and directors information that affects the whole performance or style of a piece. But only when used well. And as you said, some beginner writers might not even know when they're writing a unfilmable. But decent writers should be able to tell the difference between something that's 'unfilmable' or the real problem which is something 'uninterpretable' onscreen.
There’s another side to the so-called ‘unfilmables’ argument. And that’s the fact that one line – that some class as unfilmable – can tell an actor so much more than what to do at that exact moment. Used well, they can give actors and directors information that affects the whole performance or style of a piece. But only when used well. And as you said, some beginner writers might not even know when they're writing a unfilmable. But decent writers should be able to tell the difference between something that's 'unfilmable' or the real problem which is something 'uninterpretable' onscreen.