So, I joined this Facebook group last night for film makers. You know, share my work, make a few contacts, etc. This morning I posted my script Man's Best Friend ( on the boards here) in hopes of getting some feedback, maybe get a read or two, or who knows maybe a filmmaker will see it and love it.

So, this guy reads it. Loves it. I say thank you. That's cool. Then a so-called industry professional takes a look. Shes got IMDB creds. On page 1 she spots -- "We cut to..." Now I know most of the rules, I know anything we is frowned upon, but I used it anyway. She goes on to trash me in her posts, saying that she gave up after a couple pages because my script had "we see this" "we see that" throughout.

Really? Except for the one on page one it doesn't appear anywhere else in the script! Nowhere. So, I call her out on it. She proceeds to give me her resume, all her successes at Cannes, and how she's been reading "these documents called scripts" -- exact quote -- for 18 years. You know, some real condescending crap.

All I wanted was for her to fess up and admit that she never even read a couple pages, and just assumed the script sucked based on that one "we see" on page 1. Hasn't happened yet.

But that leads to a good point from an article I read last week about sending your script out into the big bad world for judgement. Some studio "readers" will only read one page of your script before they toss it in the trash. The woman I had the issue with is a reminder of that. So, maybe a little food for thought, and some insight as to how this "thing they call screenwriting" really works.

If she were a bloke I'd call her a dick.

As I read it she;

1] said she'd read more when she hadn't - lied in fact

2] Locked on to one phrase and bailed - that doesn't sound like a pro. Quite the opposite actually.

As we know in this business, there are a lot opinions out there. And as is often said in the army, opinions are like arseholes, we all have one.

Rough with the smooth, I'm afraid.

How many times do we have to read an article which says the pro readers don't care about format etc if the story is gripping.

All the best

If I had to read as many scripts as these readers do per day, I think I'd be miserable. I'd figure a lot of them would look for any reason they could to throw a given script into the trash. Not very professional, perhaps, but think about how many people out there flat out don't take their jobs seriously and will cut any and all corners they can get away with. In any industry. Everybody's met one.

You're not always gonna get a fair shake. All you can do is put your best foot forward and hope for the best. Or pander. That too.

Quoted Text As they drive away, we HOLD ON the cop.

This is on page 2 I think on the Spotlight script. Which won an Oscar for best original screenplay and best picture this year.

So yeah, a lot of famous writers use WE.

She was probably just trying to come off as she knows a lot, when in reality she knows very little.

Yeah, all of what you guys said is pretty much what I thought. Even guru Carson Reeves wasn't very pleased with Spotlight, as I recall.

And not only did she lie, she made an excuse for it by saying she went to bed at 3am and had a 7am call. I guess she was just tuckered out.

But there's more! Last night on my initial post she asked me if I write full time. I don't. I work two regular jobs, to which she replied, "Ahh, so you're among the 99.99999 0/0 of writers today" -- which she meant as the ones that never make it! So, for some reason, she was trashing me even before I posted my script. Laughable.

I don't know why people have to act that way.
If she didn't like it, she doesn't need to blab it to everyone.
Maybe it makes her feel like somebody special. Who knows.

Sorry someone did that to you.

Thanks Cindy. Its all good. Personally, I think it makes her look bad and I think people will recognize that.  

CJ,

That be the one.

Oh jesus is Alle still doing the rounds!

As CJ says, Google her... She used to be a regular on Stage 32, known for trolling, total nightmare... and do check her IMDB credits, hilarious!

Yeah, I Googled her earlier, but didn't look too close. Checked her imdb and, aside from the obvious, something seemed a little off. But deeper in the Google search is where I saw a few, um, things.

Wow.  Well, I haven't Googled this person yet, but:

1) Steve, I know your writing, and I know Man's Best Friend in particular.  Both stellar stuff.  And if she didn't see that outright, then WTH?

2) If she pulled "Too many We's", and there was only one on the first page?  Geez, gotta love people like that.

Trust me, I read oodles for STS - and yes, the slush pile can be tiring (no offense to anyone whatsoever who has submitted - I'm saying that reading lots of scripts takes lots of time).  But I also recognize gems when I see them. And I tell it like I see it... and *definitely* don't distort my script assessment with made-up excuses.

So - take the criticism from whence it comes... and ignore it.

Ditto to what Janet said.

Steve, my thoughts on this person's critique, if it can even be called that: Bunkum.

Btw, 'We' etc. is primarily a writer's criticism not a lay-person's view reading a script/story. To reiterate what Demento said, tons of pro scripts use it and nobody cares. Story is key ad infinitum.

The key with networking is finding the right people to network with, and weeding out the hacks.

Thanks Janet. Appreciate all the help and advice you've given me this past year or two.

Libby, I called this person out for what she said. I knew she was full of it. I even read back my script and dared her to find another we. She didn't respond to that, just more excuses. It was laughable, and by no means did I take it to heart.

What a loser, hahahaha

Agree totally with CJ, she poisonous!