It's not as if everyone here comments on spelling errors or formatting. You ever look at one of George's reviews, you'll see that it's packed with info on story and character. I use George as an example because although Jeff is one of the boards' most thorough reviewers, people reject his reviews just because they're rude, they don't like him or whatever.

Classic example of lumping everyone into one category. People here do it all the time.

It's also not as if every thread that gets posted in Screenwriting Discussion is about format or whatnot. Plenty of juicy threads on character development, story structure and what have you even at this very moment. If that's not good enough, you can always dig.

Also, you learn the most from actually writing. That's where you experience what works and what doesn't work firsthand. So write. Drop the "pussy on a pedestal" complex that so many prospective writers have for their first screenplay and write. Something. Anything.

Then post it and see what people say. If it's the same shit, at least whatever muckraking you wanna do will have some genuine credibility.

In any case, you learn the most from actually practicing your craft.

Other than that, there's worthwhile info here if you look for it. Banning reviews just sounds stupid.

I thought this was an interesting and important thread and I had a couple of thoughts.  Just as film making is a collaborative process, so is the critique process.  Not all readers are equipped or capable of responding to all aspects of a given work.  

If you're really good at spotting errors of formatting, punctuation, or spelling, bring it on.  I need to know that.  And thank you for lending me your eyes.

If you can look past that, and want to comment on structure, pace, or plot, and have suggestions along those lines my ears are equally open and I am just as thankful.  

Shut up Conwall.  You're new!!!

All kidding aside, though.  People review things differently and we have to let it go at that.  I generally don't comment on spelling and punctuation unless I know someone is going to submit a script somewhere.  If you post your first/second draft of Phlegmdogs on the boards, there will be more important things to talk (characterization, story, dialog, pacing).  Should you go back and rewrite it, you're going to have a whole new batch of misspellings and grammatical errors.

Besides, you should have a spellchecker somewhere in your damn computer.  Use it!


Phil

Quoted from conwall Not all readers are equipped or capable of responding to all aspects of a given work.

Goodness, Murph.  When did you become such a crotchety old grump?

I seem to remember commenting on at least a few of your early works, and am so glad to learn my time was wasted.

And, as James says, a piss-take OWC is a big part of the problem, not the solution.  Grumpy aussie speak with forked tongue.

Anyways, I do feel you on scripts that are too poor to read.  We have chased Don around many times on that issue, but his mindset is closer to Conwall's up top.

Rather than barring the door for those who are low on the curve, he seeks instead to raise them up.

I do not always agree with him, but respect his reasons for doing what he does.

Quoted from bert Rather than barring the door for those who are low on the curve, he seeks instead to raise them up.

This exactly why banning scripts and reviews would be a horrible, horrible idea. SS gives amateurs the opportunity to grow and improve. This is true in theory as well as in practice. I speak for myself as well as other writers I've watched sharpen their writing skills over the years. There's a few who joined SS around the same time I did who started out without a clue but grew into good writers (at the very least competent writers). Some of them whose work now compared to their work then is the difference between night and day.

This is the primary reason why your talk of banning, Murphy, struck me as so shocking and repugnant.