This individual may be a real asswipe, idiot, bitch, whatever you want to call her, but there is a lesson to be learned here.

As I've always said, when you do things that you know are issues to "some" peeps, you're risking hearing something similar, or just, "I'm out".

You guys know I do this routinely and I don't do it out of spite, to be a cock, to look cool, knowledgeable, or anything of the sort.

If someone makes a "mistake" in the opening Slug or passage, uses "we see, we hear, we whatever", chances are good I will not continue because I either know or assume what I'm in for.  I may be missing a great script, story, or whatever, but chances are god that I'm right in what I'm assuming.

Readers have to make choices where to invest their time.  Don't give them such easy reasons to bail on your script.

I have always believed that the weaker the skills or the focus (or both) of the reviewer, the more they overemphasize non-essential issues. Whether you use a "we see" or not is a non-essential issue.

I get what Jeff is saying. Not that I was looking to that wacko I came across, but I also said this in my original post about a lesson to be learned. Real pro industry types who read these scripts are gonna look for anything so they can bail on a script. Not saying its right. It's just the way it is. I think format rules -- the basics -- are easier to break once you've already broken into the business.

Quoted from SAC I get what Jeff is saying. Not that I was looking to that wacko I came across, but I also said this in my original post about a lesson to be learned. Real pro industry types who read these scripts are gonna look for anything so they can bail on a script. Not saying its right. It's just the way it is. I think format rules -- the basics -- are easier to break once you've already broken into the business.

I do believe that it is a reason they may bail on an otherwise bad script. But they would bail anyways. I do not believe it is a reason they will bail on an otherwise good script.

Quoted from CJ Walley It would be worth giving the group moderators a heads up on her history and other aliases...

Quoted from AnthonyCawood Agree totally with CJ, she poisonous!

No need for an exhaustive background, thanks.  Unless you have got something particularly insidious and prurient -- which is always welcome (although Don is above such things) -- a few quick glances here and there on the web have told me all that I care to know for the moment.

A quick heads-up if you spot her lurking about might be nice, though I am fairly sure she has yet to grace us with her learned presence.

Quoted from eldave1 I have always believed that the weaker the skills or the focus (or both) of the reviewer, the more they overemphasize non-essential issues. Whether you use a "we see" or not is a non-essential issue.

I do not agree the slightest bit, Dave.

There are many, many "non-essential" issues that occur and turn peeps off to the point where they bail.

This is an age old discussion and it's not only creative choices, it's also downright mistakes, typos, poor grammar, etc.  Those who are not strong  "writers", always are the ones who say these things shouldn't matter...but they do.

The "we see" and "we hear" issues are interesting to me, because there are so very few reasons to actually use such a phrase, because every action and description written in a script is seen and every piece of dialogue or described sounds are heard.

Bottom line - they are a waste and it doesn't matter if a Pro uses them over and over - they are a waste and are the first ways a brand new writer writes, because they don't know any better.  Why someone who does know better continues to choose to do it is way beyond me.

Quoted from Dreamscale I do not agree the slightest bit, Dave. There are many, many "non-essential" issues that occur and turn peeps off to the point where they bail. This is an age old discussion and it's not only creative choices, it's also downright mistakes, typos, poor grammar, etc.  Those who are not strong  "writers", always are the ones who say these things shouldn't matter...but they do. The "we see" and "we hear" issues are interesting to me, because there are so very few reasons to actually use such a phrase, because every action and description written in a script is seen and every piece of dialogue or described sounds are heard. Bottom line - they are a waste and it doesn't matter if a Pro uses them over and over - they are a waste and are the first ways a brand new writer writes, because they don't know any better.  Why someone who does know better continues to choose to do it is way beyond me.

That's cool, Jeff. But let's not include typos and grammar in the issue as they are objective measures. No one would argue that it makes sense to include either in a script. Nor am I advocating the "we hear". "We hear a GUNSHOT" as not as compelling as "A GUNSHOT pierces the silence." But that is not the point.

If one bails on the script because of that (or a similar) issue they are (a) a bad reviewer and (b) would not bail if the script was otherwise compelling.  

So - agree to disagree I guess.

One only needs to look at the type of people that do bail after reading things like this to realise that we don't have anything to worry about.

Quoted from DustinBowcot One only needs to look at the type of people that do bail after reading things like this to realise that we don't have anything to worry about.

Yea we get totally worked up about this and lose focus at the same time. If someone was holding a mill and reading mine and bailed due to a typo I'd be peed, but how many people who bail are the make or break of you script, pretty much none.

Well said, CJ.

I agree with Jeff about work being compromised if a script has a lot of typos, lack of punctuation, grammar mistakes etc. i.e., a blatant disregard for professionalism as a writer, but time and time again we surely have to stop obsessing about 'We see' etc. - I read Blackscripts, Bloodscripts, pro-scripts with all sorts of blunders as far as the rules go.

The one thing these scripts all have in common though is that they're bloody good stories/page turners.

Quoted from CJ Walley scripts are read with a degree of optimism and a focus on potential. They are looking for entertaining storytelling. Plus, when it comes to a paid reader, they are paid to read a solicited script in full and provide coverage aligned with their employer, not to freak out and toss the whole slush pile in the bin every time someone breaks one of their made up petty rules.

This is true. They have to write coverage for all the scripts they read as proof they've actually read them. I'm sure they can get cranky if the writer has a million mistakes and such, but the reader's main job is to find good, unique, marketable stories. That's all they are looking for. What they are paid to find.

I'm still struggling with grammar and such, but I've come a loooong way in the last ten years. I wrote a female lead thriller The Hit, sent the first draft to Screenplay Readers and got only CONSIDERS back. I had two friends read it and they said it wasn't too bad. I figured it can't suck too bad then, so I posted it on InkTip and it got picked up by Mind's Eye Entertainment. It was a freaking first draft! With warts and all.  

Pia, I think your grammar etc.is always pretty darned good. I would never guess you were of NESB if I hadn't known already. Read plenty of your stuff and the occasional interesting choice of word, but that's all. It's obvious you put a lot of work in, but then you are prolific so it clearly paid off. Admirable.

Quoted from LC The one thing these scripts all have in common though is that they're bloody good stories/page turners.

Well, I can't just walk away...wish I could, but I can't.

Libby, are you really saying something even close to "all (or most) Pro scripts are incredible"?

And I don't mean to call you out, cuz I hear this horseshit so often, it just makes my big old head spin.

Of the 1,000 or so scripts that turn into actual movies each year, how many are based on original scripts that are incredible stories?  20?  15?  Less than 10?  How many are critically praised as great ideas, well written, etc?  20?  15?  Less than 10?

And these oh so coveted Blacklist scripts that sit around for years, not being picked up..what does that tell you?  It tells me all I need to know.  

Jeff

I think you are reaching if you turn 'bloody good' or 'page turners' into 'incredible' for the sake of your arguement.

What I took Libby to mean was that they read well and the stories were compelling enough for someone to overlook a few minor typos and 'we sees' and appreciate the narrative enough to produce it.

Your stats re 'incredible' scripts may well be correct... But there are plenty of working writers, in fact the majority based on your own estimates, who are happy enough with their optioned/sold/produced 'page turners'.

One day I hope to write something incredible, but i'd settle for bloody good too.