Who Wrote What and Writer's Choice - Announced

Writers' Choice for the April 2019 OWC

Don's Edit: Sincere apologies for yet another cock-up. In an attempt to random "the rest' some of the scripts got mis-attributed. I've gone back and fixed the error, this is the final, correct standings.

Theme: Vehicular Suspense
Genre: Horror
Challenge: The majority of your screenplay must heavily feature some sort of vehicle AND have at least one sequence of prolonged suspense. But that's not all. This OWC has a twist. Gore is to be kept to a minimum. Put readers on the edge of their seat with suspense, don't shock them with disturbing gore.

Writers' Choice

3.68 The Stowaway by Al Lougher (Britman) writing as Nacho Poncharelo - Short, Horror - Making a routine delivery across the Mexican border, a loudmouthed trucker discovers something terrifying has hitched along for the ride. 12 pages - pdf format

Writers' Liked

3.29 The Libertine by Dustin Bowcott (Dustin) writing as Poe Lovecraft - Short, Horror - After purchasing some slaves, sailors begin disappearing on the journey home. Is it just plain, bad luck or is there something evil aboard? 8 pages - pdf format

3.18 Gondolier by Anthony Cawood (AnthonyCawood) writing as Gilbert Sullivan - Short, Horror - A power engineer must fight for his life to get the job done. 10 pages - pdf format

3.13 It's Coming by Joe Garza (SPQR) writing as László Görög - Short, Horror - The crew of a subway tunnel digging machine unearth something that was never meant to see the light of day again. 12 pages - pdf format

3.11 Ganglers by Mark Renshaw (MarkRenshaw) writing as Kruger Candy - Short, Horror - A jaded correction officer transporting a busload of restrained inmates must choose whether to defend the prisoners she despises when they are attacked by creatures with a twisted sense of justice. 12 pages - pdf format

3.00 Beyond the Sea by Matthew Layden (TheUsualSuspect) writing as Delta Weanmyth - Short, Horror - Howard ventures out to sea to look for his sister after he discovers a survivor from her boat's wreckage. What he finds out there is something far worse… 11 pages - pdf format

2.94 First Responders by Rene Claveau (ReneC) writing as George - Short, Horror - Emergency services always answer the call, but they aren't always prepared for what they encounter. 10 pages - pdf format

2.78 Protocol 25 by Dena McKinnon and Kevin Lenihan  (paleyellow) writing as Menhaden Ainn and Nick Linkoven - Short, Horror - An injured woman finds herself trapped in an ambulance with the guy she injured who's also a serial killer. 7 pages - pdf format

The rest in no particular order

The Furnace Of War by Steve McDonell (stevie) writing as A.N.Other - Short, Horror - A WW2 bomber crew face a new kind of enemy over the skies of Germany, 12 pages - pdf format

The Gathering by Jeff Bush (Dreamscale) writing as Dale Creams - Short, Horror - Something has arrived with a storm outside Santa Fe, New Mexico, and it brings a gift to mankind that will keep on giving.  11 pages - pdf format

Diversion Down Elder Tree Lane by Matthew Taylor (Matt) writing as *Insert Witty Name* - Short, Horror - A father and son with a strained relationship cross path with a malevolent tree on their way to a special visit. 11 pages - pdf format

Reap What You Sow by Warren Duncan (Warren) writing as A Simple Farmer - Short, Horror - Upon returning to her childhood home, a young woman recalls memories from her past. A past in which monsters were very real. 12 pages - pdf format

A Pinch by John Staats (JEStaats) writing as ---- - Short, Horror - Alcohol, tobacco and firearms. What could go wrong? 8 pages - pdf format

El Camino Infierno (Hell) by Christopher J Vecchio (ChrisV) writing as ? - Short, Horror - Two brothers must escape town as unknown forces destroy everything in site. 12 pages - pdf format

Gut Shot by Eric C Dickson (Dickson) writing as Dick Icecorns - Short, Horror - A man carjacked, shot and left for dead thirty years earlier takes possession of a man traveling the same desert road in the same make and model Corvette Stingray.  12 pages - pdf format

I Dream Of The Devil by Glenn Doyle (IAmGlenn) writing as D - Short, Horror - On a rainy night, two men meet to discuss a peculiar, recurring dream. 5 pages - pdf format

Tillinghaust 1944 by Darren Seeley (DarrenJamesSeeley) writing as William Dyer - Short, Horror - Five lost soldiers curious about an abandoned tank, investigate the surrounding desolate, remote village which does not exist on any map. 12 pages - pdf format

Kármán Line by R.J. Howard (Howie365) writing as Ward Rhoj - Short, Horror, Space - On their way to service a broken satellite in geosynchronous orbit, four astronauts experience something they can’t explain and will never forget. 12 pages - pdf format

Driving The Relm by Roland S. Jefferson (RolandJ) writing as Leäf Sensnør Fjörd - Short, Horror - The new owner of the latest self-driving car gets the ride of his life. Literally! 12 pages - pdf format

Trebizond by Mark-Curtis Dunn (currentcmine) writing as Mac Dirkunturns - Short, Horror - A CEO on vacation with his family takes a trip in his RV to a ghost mining town in the Mojave Desert only to disturb the guardian spirit of the town and suffer the consequences. 12 pages - pdf format

Loaned Woes by Sean Elwood (thedeadwalk2nite) writing as Loaned Woes - Short, Horror - A man encounters something strange in the woods. 5 pages - pdf format

Belgian Spring by Dan Ball (DanBall) writing as Anonymous - Short, Horror - Escaping the invading German army during the Battle of the Bulge, a small infantry company must evacuate civilians to safety in the midst of snipers and V-1 buzz-bombs. 12 pages - pdf format

The Woodsman by James Jay (JamesJ) writing as James Jay - Short, Horror - When a cheating hubby needs a his wife to disappear he doesn't bank on her rescue of a small Woodsmans child.  - pdf format

Drank by NYA Angelique (Angiez) writing as Anonymous - Short, Horror - Kate who awaken tied up in a barn after drinking too much at a party, has no other choice but to play an evil game to save her three best friends. - pdf format

Sea-Level Threat by Ryan Beane (RyanBeane) writing as Terrence Parker - Short, Horror, Suspense - Two Navy seals trapped in a neutralized submarine at the bottom of the ocean must work together to reunite with the rest of the soldiers. 7 pages - pdf format

Remote Control by Paul Knauer (PKCardinal) writing as The Dog Down the Street Who Won't Stop Barking, OMG, Shut Up Already - Short, Horror - A mother gets a mysterious visit on her missing son's birthday. 5 pages - pdf format

Congrats Al!

And congrats to all that entered, was a fun challenge.

Congrats! The Stowaway did rise to the top after all.

I’m glad to see the top ones were all pretty close in scores. It kept the suspense up with no clear frontrunner. Coincidence?

Hi Don, I think I may have written Reap What You Sow :p

Actually it seems like a few might be incorrectly named, I believe Paul wrote Remote Control.

Ooh, just as I was going to bed! Congratulations Al! ;-)

Anyway... Congrats to The Stowaway, it was an really well written script.

Big congrats to Al!

And a big thanks to Don, for continuing to be awesome. ;D

Quoted from Zack

Big congrats to Al!

And a big thanks to Don, for continuing to be awesome. ;D

Are we sure Al wrote it? A lot of the names are mixed up.

Yep, I'll take credit for Remote Control. :)

Congrats Al and runner-ups. Nicely done, all.

Thanks all! Figured I’d write my own script for a change, instead of making everyone else’s. :)

Quoted from Warren

... A lot of the names are mixed up.

Sent a message to Don.
Stay tuned for fixes.

Quoted from Britman

Thanks all! Figured I’d write my own script for a change, instead of making everyone else’s.

Written by Al
Directed by Al
Starring Al as Al
Theme tune written and performed by Al

Quoted from Warren

Hi Don, I think I may have written Reap What You Sow :p

Warren,

Apologies. In an attempt to randomize the rest I got things out of order and mis-attributed.

Sorry,

Don

Quoted from Warren

Actually it seems like a few might be incorrectly named, I believe Paul wrote Remote Control.

I have fixed this. Again, apologies.

- Don

Quoted from Warren

Glad mine still made the writer's like section :)

HUH? Am I missing something here?

Quoted from Dreamscale

HUH? Am I missing something here?

That was written before I corrected the listings.  I made a mistake.

Let me distract from that:

Did anyone notice some of the pseudonyms?  If the author didn't give a pseudonym, I took a cue from Sean Elwood - Loaned Woes and created anagram pseudonyms...

Matthew Layden (TheUsualSuspect) writing as Delta Weanmyth
Dena McKin and Kevin Lenihan  (paleyellow) writing as Menhaden Ainn and Nick Linkoven
Eric C Dickson (Dickson) writing as Dick Icecorns
Jeff Bush (Dreamscale) writing as Dale Creams (I am particularly proud of that one...)
Mark-Curtis Dunn (currentcmine) writing as Mac Dirkunturns

- Don

Dick Icecorns made me chuckle...

I looked up my given name thinking it was something.

It was nothing. Ha.

Quoted from Don

Jeff Bush (Dreamscale) writing as Dale Creams (I am particularly proud of that one...)

;D This will be how I address Jeff from this moment forward.

Quoted from Don

Warren,

Apologies. In an attempt to randomize the rest I got things out of order and mis-attributed.

Sorry,

Don

I definitely liked it better when my script was in the Writer's Liked section, we can go back to that if you like :p

Quoted from Warren

I definitely liked it better when my script was in the Writer's Liked section, we can go back to that if you like :p

I know YOU liked your script... and sometimes that's enough.

It is for me in this round. I started off hating my script (too linear), and, after adding a few layers, ended up liking it.

Now, despite my abysmal results, I feel good about this OWC. As should you!

Congrats on everyone who participated. These are usually picked up by filmmakers.

Not sure if you gents/ladies need any more reviews but, Iâ€™ll see if I can read a couple. No guarantees.

Gabe

Congrats to Al and to all the "writer's liked" scripts - so very nice work here.

One of my favorite's didn't make the list - glad to see Libertine there - it was top notch - good one, Dustin

Congrats Al!!!

Interesting observation here. We are screenwriters here. The winning script is written by a writer, director and producer. I'm wondering if we could all learn to become better writers by thinking more like directors and filmmakers. I know I'm trying. 8)

Congrats to all the "winners", but all who entered and read, and gave feedback are the real winners.

To those who entered, got reads and feedback, and gave no feedback, you should be ashamed. Serioulsy.

Britman - CONGRATS! Great script! Congrats. Hope we see more of you, as you're a great writer.

Quoted from Grandma Bear

I do.
Does me no favors.

Much congrats Britman!

And to the others at the top - well done! And to all who read and reviewed.

My top 4 are in writers choice and writers also liked.
My personal favourite was Gondolier

Well done to all who entered.

To those who entered but contributed nothing - sort it out! There are no prizes for this challenge, so what's the point entering without getting involved?

This is a community of writers helping writers - taking without giving is not cool and not in the spirit of the challenge.

Quoted from PKCardinal

I know YOU liked your script... and sometimes that's enough.

For sure, I'm very happy with it, but I knew it was going to be an issue. I will stay in the lines for the next OWC :)

Quoted from Dreamscale

This (peeps not reading) use to not bother me - kind of a, oh well - but I have to admit it's pissing me off more and more. Like - heh, I'm going to bring nothing to the potluck dinner - the food better be good.

There was an entrant in this one that claimed they couldn't read scripts from the last OWC because of illness (a very long one I guess) and sure as shit they did the same thing this time. WTF? When I see all the folks who didn't enter read and comment it makes me even crankier to see ones that did enter and not comment.

Dave Lambertson, I sent you a PM. Totally inapplicable to this conversation. Just a question about a filmmaker you worked with.

Eric D.

The next Purge movie will be about a 24 hour period when writers of the OWC can hunt down those who entered but did not leave any reviews.

Quoted from ericdickson

Dave Lambertson, I sent you a PM. Totally inapplicable to this conversation. Just a question about a filmmaker you worked with.

Eric D.

Hit you back

It's just me or there are a lot of brits up there?

Congrats to Al and all the runner-ups!

Well done to all who entered!

Great challenge, Zack.

Quoted from eldave1

I agree with you Dave. When I saw that writers name pop up I was annoyed - what’s more annoying is that they also cheated (EDIT: I suspect anyway, thought I should clarify). The script they submitted is a version of one that already existed - I knew I had read the title and logline somewhere, but wasn’t until the name was revealed that I remembered.

Writer, if your reading, the point of the challenge is to to come up with a new story in a week, not submit one you already had.

Congrats to you, Al! I'm looking forward to reading yours.

And of course congrats to everyone who entered. :)

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

I agree with you Dave. When I saw that writers name pop up I was annoyed - what’s more annoying is that they also cheated. The script they submitted is a version of one that already existed - I knew I had read the title and logline somewhere, but wasn’t until the name was revealed that I remembered.

Writer, if your reading, the point of the challenge is to to come up with a new story in a week, not submit one you already had.

I hope no one actually just re-purposed an old script for this challenge, that's pretty low. Can anyone confirm this as fact?

Quoted from eldave1

I agree it's poor form.

If it annoys you (and it obviously does) follow Bert's advice and remove your feedback from the script in question.

Can we just out this script? Which one is it?

Quoted from Zack

I hope no one actually just re-purposed an old script for this challenge, that's pretty low. Can anyone confirm this as fact?

If that did occur it would only be an issue imho, if that particular script rose to the top of the pack of Writer's Choice, and that's unlikely to happen.

It's usually pretty transparent when a script has been re-edited to fit the parameters of an OWC, or if it has been posted before keen eyes are going to suss it out.

The writer would certainly not be doing themselves any favours by posting a rehashed version of something previously written, or daring to incur the wrath of you lot. ;D

My advice is let it go.
This particular OWC is done and dusted.

Alternatively, you can PM Don your concerns.

P.S. Oh, and as above. If you feel the writer doesn't deserve your feedback (for their lack of participation) delete it from the thread in question.

If that's the case, I would suggest a one year ban from entering any OWC. :(

Quoted from Grandma Bear

If that's the case, I would suggest a one year ban from entering any OWC. :(

I agree. Not cool.

Further to what was said above, Matthew: Do you see that 'Report' button, right hand side of the script thread? You can always use that to notify Don, for any shenanigans eg. if you thought you'd already read a script prior to the OWC.

Quoted from Zack

I hope no one actually just re-purposed an old script for this challenge, that's pretty low. Can anyone confirm this as fact?

I'm kind of curious now, too.
I also wonder if,in the previous OWC this script was from they had the same errors as they had in this OWC...if that was the case,it tells you something about that scribe.

Even if that person is new to screenwriting. If so, they may not know of what to look for, technical issues, an soon, so they fear commenting because "they don't know what to say"
I've heard that excuse before- it's BS. Subjective opinion can also cover story an characters, what you like or don't like.

Quoted from DarrenJamesSeeley

Agree!

Quoted from LC

Thanks, will do.

Sorry, I didn't mean to turn this thread negative lol Time to turn it back to positive...

Thanks, Zack for this challenge :-) Have never written horror before and I think I have developed a taste for it now lol

No problemo, Matt. Just an FYI.
Btw, I agree with Warren about your Disclaimer not being needed. ;)

Hi folks,

I've removed the script in question.

With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.

- Don

Just to clarify: the first draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' was written in under an hour the first Wednesday (or Thursday, I forget) after the competition began. I submitted a second (much better) 11 page draft to the websites Stage32 and Scriptrevolution two days before the contest ended.

Here's a link to the final draft of 'It's Garbage Day!' for anyone interested in reading it (re-titled 'Garbage Day!'): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFcl2Xq4H7iNW1Ocll3NWZ3TDFrVkpkQnQzaENrbEVZVzU4/view?usp=sharing

I am very grateful for this OWC because I will be using the short written loosely following the criteria to create a second sci-fi anthology titled 'Psychocycle', a sequel to my script 'Psychosystem'.

Quoted from Don

I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.

- Don

When people submit, in the confirmation email, state that entrants are required to read a minimum of 50% of the entries or your script will be removed.

Quoted from Hank

Hank:

You received some critical comments in the previous OWC because of your lack of reads or comments. You responded that you were sick and that you would read and comment on those post contest - you didn't.

This OWC you did not comment on any scripts despite receiving many on yours.

The OWCs operate under a good faith paradigm - that is, in exchange for peeps reading and commenting on your script, you will do the same for others. By not doing so you are exploiting the time, energy and good faith of other writers on the site. My advice is - do not participate in OWCs unless you are committed to truly participating (reading and commenting on other scripts) in the OWCs. Absent that, you will just piss people off and eventually all of your work, including non-OWC postings will be ignored.

I will read and comment on other people's scripts eventually. Since taking my time with it bothers so many people, next OWC I will instead wait until the contest is over to submit my criteria-based script to whichever board its genre falls under.

Quoted from Don

Hi folks,

I've removed the script in question.

With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.

- Don

That is a toughie.

Just spit balling - incorporate reviews into the scoring system. e.g., tabulate the script scores and the resultant average.

- Add zero points for writers who read less than 25% of the scripts.
- Add .25 points for writers who read 25% to 50% of the scripts.
- Add .5 points for writers who read more than 50% of the scripts.

For example, if a script gets a rated score of 3.2 - and that writer read 50% or more of the scripts, their final score would be 3.7 (i.e., 3.2 rating plus .5 bonus for reading).

I'm just making up the above numbers for illustrative purposes. They can be anything. The premise is that this is not a contest - it's a challenge - and that challenge includes both writing a script and reading those written by others.

Work wise - someone who have to responsible for counting the reads/comments by writers and tabulating the result (Volunteer basis). I did not submit for this OWC but read 20 scripts - I would have been willing to be the reader score tabulator instead.

Just spit balling.

Quoted from Don

Hi folks,

I've removed the script in question.

With regard to folks not commenting on scripts. I'm willing to entertain ideas on how we can get better participation.

- Don

I'm willing to keep a running count on reviewers and non-reviewers. I mean, for the most part (with the exception of people getting involved on the site for the first time and learning the ropes), we know the people who are going to do the decent thing and review when they submit and we know who won't.

But, a few possibilities:

Bar them from participating in future challenges until they review all the entries in a challenge (without participating in said challenge).

Put an asterisk next to their script title, if they have a history of not reviewing, so people know that they read it at their own risk.

Basic three strikes rule: First offense, banned from the next challenge. Second offense: banned from the next two challenges. Third offense: banned from all challenges.

The hard part is that you don't want to be mean-spirited with these things, but you still want to get the point across. You want it to be seen as positive (review scripts so everyone benefits, including yourself) rather than negative (review so you won't be barred from participating).

Quoted from Hank

You probably won't read and comment on them since you didn't last time. You're in arrears on two of them now. We'll see I guess.

Regardless, you're solution - not submitting to the challenge will work. No one will be upset that you did not comment on scripts in a challenge that you were not part of.

Thanks for the boost of confidence. I will follow through with your summation of what I previously stated.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde

I like these ideas.

We have to be careful... because once we start putting in tougher rules this has a knock on effect down the chain. Some members might not participate because they feel pressured even though had they participated they would have reached whatever threshhold anyway - a better safe than sorry attitude.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I take your point, but I think we can work something out that meets both adjectives (I think the point added thing for reviewers I mentioned earlier is an inducement rather than a punishment).

I've become progressively angry regarding the non-reviewers the more and more OWCs I have participated in. Not sure why - maybe because I think they're stealing reviews of their script. When I look at regular scripts to comment on: - if it is a newbie - I might read/comment. Same if it is a regular peep who I know to be a commenter/reviewer of other scripts. If it is someone who never comments, I shine them on.

Can't shine them on in a OWC because it's anonymous. Not sure why that irks me so - but it does.

Quoted from eldave1

I've become progressively angry regarding the non-reviewers the more and more OWCs I have participated in.

I agree, and I used to constantly beat that drum myself.

But fact is, any "system" that might be implemented means one more thing Don has to keep track of, and these OWCs are already kind of pain, so he is a saint to even run them at all.

In the end I think it is just a flaw inherent in the system that we must live with. Still cool to call out the parasites when you see 'em, tho. But beyond that I think additional levels of complexity are kind of counterproductive.

Isn't 20 reviews enough? We have to look at the value of those reviews too. Every single writer (mostly) that reviews other scripts have entered one themselves and therefore have a vested interest in winning. It's a little like a game of poker. Most of us are in it for the mug.

We don't really care about the reviews other than whether the reader liked it or not. Those that do it for reviews are pretty desperate writers and likely need the help. What value a review from them anyway?

Quoted from bert

Yeah..could be.

I confess I didn't do my fair share. I think I read about 15 and commented on about 10. I don't comment on scripts if I can't find something constructive to say.

Which leads me to another point you guys should consider. Should a read count if the comment is useless? This comment appeared on ours: "No idea what this one is about. They're all killers? Really strange."

That's the whole comment. Now you might argue that we could learn that the reader didn't like the script and didn't understand it. In theory that is helpful. But almost everyone else that read it seemed to understand there was a body-jumping thing going on. This reader was the only one who didn't. Which tells me he didn't really put any effort into it.

Which is fine. Life is short. If a script doesn't grab you, why bother reading it? Our script was not very well done, so I don't expect a reader to push through an unhappy experience.

But at the same time, it also feels like some readers are racing through the scripts so they can check them off. I mean how easy would it be to comment on every script if the comment is utterly useless? I could read Stowaway up til the spider appears, and my comment could be "Ah, spiders, not a fan, I'm out." Then move on to the next script.

I had a really hard time getting through the slave script. It made me stop reading scripts for a few days. But I tried to make a helpful comment.

I would not make any rules about required reading.

I have another suggestion.

Dena and I have become very good friends who work together all year. Last year we sold a screenplay for a $1800. Maybe someday we'll do better. And we met here. During an OWC. This was how it happened.

Dena had submitted a script but had not commented. I had been a member here for less than a year. Dena, who I didn't know, shyly commented in the general OWC thread that she was nervous about commenting because she didn't feel qualified. I told her writers just want feedback, and everyone's opinion helps. Just comment on what you like and don't like about the story. She did, and became an active regular here and made numerous friends.

the idea

So rather than punish people who don't comment...make it positive. Seek them out and encourage them to comment. If they stay invisible, this will require Don's help. Maybe some OWC ambassadors could be made, people who could contact silent writers and try to draw them out nicely. Pia, Jeff...whoever. Just send them an email, maybe through Don, saying: we're grateful you submitted, please help us out by giving your opinion. No technical knowledge of screenwriting required. Just read and comment on what you like and don't.

Just a crazy idea.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

Not sure what enough is. To me is is more of an equity thing - i.e., do your part.

In this OWC, it looks like around 9 of the most frequent commenters didn't enter a script. So had the non-participants not stepped up, probably would have averaged around ten reviews per script. I just think that is pretty sad representation for a 26 script challenge.

Either that or I'm just feeling pissy.

For me, it's not the fact that I am getting fewer reviews than I give out - As Dustin points out we get enough reviews to help with any rewrites. (Although good point made above by Dave - Non participants have held up the reviews this time around)

It's more the principle of it - The downright cheek of taking with no intention of giving.

More red tape is never good in my opinion though - we don't want to take anything away from the OWC.

Sometimes newbies are scared to comment, sometimes a reg has the intention of reading and reviewing but life gets in the way - we don't want to punish them. We only really want to target repeat offenders - Those who just selfishly refuse to participate but are happy to receive 20+ reviews in one week.

I like the idea of just putting a * next to an OWC entrant who has entered at least 1 OWC beforehand but has contributed ZERO - Regs can then decide for themselves whether to give detailed feedback on that entrant or not.

BTW if Don or anyone needs/wants any help in the running of these OWC, or anything on the website in general - I'm more than happy to offer my services

Quoted from DustinBowcot

We don't really care about the reviews other than whether the reader liked it or not. Those that do it for reviews are pretty desperate writers and likely need the help. What value a review from them anyway?

I disagree, to a point.

Yes, the mug is great. Everyone likes kudos. (The main thing for me is the challenge. I've never written any horror before the OWCs. Probably never would have. But, now I have 2 horror shorts. I like them both.)

But, to your point, I find the reviews very helpful. On one hand, I'm getting technically more precise. It's an aspect of screenwriting I didn't know I would like so much. But, the reviews have helped me recognize the importance of precision. The more precise your writing, the less it distracts from the story.

Beyond that, reviews help you see problems that you can't/didn't see. If you're ignoring reviews because you're only concerned about whether someone likes the script or not, you're depriving yourself of a great tool to improve your writing.

I do get what you're saying: in the end, it's about you and your script. But, I wanted to push back on the "desperate writers" portion of your comment. It's not desperate to pursue feedback. It's smart.

I definitely didn't read your script properly and it was because of the former, Kev. If a script is good, as you said somehwere else, has voice, then I'll process the story far better than somebody who writes events like a boring shopping list.

Perhaps that is where our styles clash. I like to entertain with my writing, you prefer to bore people to death.

Quoted from PKCardinal

If you're ignoring reviews because you're only concerned about whether someone likes the script or not, you're depriving yourself of a great tool to improve your writing.

Improve my writing how?

Quoted from leitskev

the idea
So rather than punish people who don't comment...make it positive. Seek them out and encourage them to comment. If they stay invisible, this will require Don's help. Maybe some OWC ambassadors could be made, people who could contact silent writers and try to draw them out nicely. Pia, Jeff...whoever. Just send them an email, maybe through Don, saying: we're grateful you submitted, please help us out by giving your opinion. No technical knowledge of screenwriting required. Just read and comment on what you like and don't.

This is a very good idea, but I cannot be that person, as everyone hates me and what I have to say.

Something does need to be done for sure. Like others, it pisses me off to no end to see peeps not adhere to what this is all about - giving out as much or more than you get back.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

It's more the principle of it - The downright cheek of taking with no intention of giving.

Sums up my feelings perfectly.

Dustin, I've already admitted our script was a disaster. Although if you claim to like to entertain people, Libertine is not a good example. I had no idea it was yours. In fact, it was suggested I read it because it was supposedly Bert's. So I tried damn hard to like that script, and it bored me so profoundly that getting through was worse than some of the medical treatments I've been through. It was the reason I stopped reading scripts in the OWC(I eventually pushged myself to come back) But I didn't trash it. I tried to provide constructive comments. I think you did a good job on the dialog. With a few changes in storytelling technique you could do decent work. Providing one line comments feels more like checking a list.

Jeff...actually, you would be perfect. You trash scripts, but you never trash comments, and you always encourage participation and feedback. You've done that for more than a decade. I can't think of anyone more suited to that job.

Quoted from leitskev

Jeff...actually, you would be perfect. You trash scripts, but you never trash comments, and you always encourage participation and feedback. You've done that for more than a decade. I can't think of anyone more suited to that job.

In all honesty, as soon as that idea was posed, Jeff was the first person I thought of, too. Even though you (Jeff) have a very direct style, it's not inherently negative. You want people to do better, you want more participation. All the things you'd like from people would result in something positive.

Quoted from leitskev

But, Kevin, all of this is based on the assumption that I respect your opinion on storytelling. Guess what?

Quoted from leitskev

Jeff...actually, you would be perfect.

Quoted from Mr. Blonde

Jeff was the first person I thought of, too.

Haha you guys must be high.

If somebody doesn't want to read they're not going to read.

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but honestly, this has always been a problem, and no fix you can propose will capture people acting like jerks in their first OWC which is (often) the problem and then they (sometimes) get better next time after people bitch at them.

Quoted from bert

Maybe you're right. But, could this possibly be the time to do away with the anonymity thing, then? One would figure, at this point in the site's history, people can be trusted to leave objective reviews, regardless of whether or not they know who's writing a script?

You could always take into consideration the fact that if you know the writer is a veteran of the site, they may not need help in regards to structure, but a more specific targeting of their actual weaknesses, whereas a completely new writer might still be struggling with the basics before people move on to commenting on more advanced things. Maybe?

Quoted from Mr. Blonde

NO!!!! No one would even read mine if they knew it was mine before they opened it up.

This is not really my business, I'm not a regular anymore. But I think newbs stay quiet because they are shy and think they don't know enough. You can draw some of them out just be reassuring them that their opinions are just as useful as an old veteran writer.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

Improve my writing how?

By learning from people who know something you don't. And, I don't just mean the technicalities of writing, I mean: people know stuff about your own script/story that you don't know.

Like, for example, if you're too close to a script and you can't see that one of your characters is acting inconsistently. The same note from several reviewers might alert you to the fact that you're blind to a problem.

Every single writer gets too close to their script. Every single one. And, I'd argue it happens on almost every single script.

Why ignore such a valuable tool as audience feedback? (Unless, of course, you don't care if anyone else reacts well to your work. If you're goal is to only write for yourself, then by all means, ignore the audience. Which is, of course, your right to do.)

Quoted from leitskev

Jeff...You trash scripts, but you never trash comments...

I dunno - Jeff wasn't pleased with my comment on El Camino Infierno lol

Quoted from Dreamscale

NO!!!! No one would even read mine if they knew it was mine before they opened it up.

I would. After all, I've only hated one of your scripts in all my time here. =)

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

I dunno - Jeff wasn't pleased with my comment on El Camino Infierno lol

HA!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

I was actually shocked.

INT FRONT DOOR

INT FRONT WINDOW

INT MY ARSE ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from leitskev

I've tried leaving comments in the general threads to convince newbs to comment/get involved - The problem is, we don't know who these newbs are until the names are released - by then, it's too late.

I don't think people have a problem with the newbs anyway - Afterward, we can reach out to them and be like "Look, if you enter the next OWC, get involved" - It's more the names that pop up more than once, who are perfectly capable of leaving comments, but refuse to do so.

Count me as a vote for continued anonymity. I believe reputation would absolutely change people's comments and voting -- both for people with "good" reputations, and for people with "bad" reputations.

I like knowing that my script has to stand on its own. If it sucks, it sucks. If it's good, it's good.

Dustin, fine and well. I didn't mean to provoke you. My point was regarding the proposal to make commenting a requirement. I'm against this because many people just zip through reads making useless comments so they can say they read them all. I HAVE seen you make useful and intelligent comments. And I don't doubt that if an OWC grabbed you you would be more inclined to do this. But I think some of your comments do fall under the category of "checklist" comments. Making writers read all or most of the scripts would only encourage this kind of behavior.

In the past, I have submitted OWC's that were well received. Such a script might get 20 or so reads and comments. But only a small percentage of those comments were actually useful. That's one of the reasons I stopped doing OWCs years ago. I'd put a lot of effort into trying to give constructive comments, but the return in terms of useful criticism wasn't worth it.

Quoted from PKCardinal

My goal isn't to only write for myself. This past 12 months, I've sold six full-length audio plays, five short audio plays, three short screenplays, a TV pilot, a monologue, and more than sixty, five-minute animation scripts. I've also sold three feature-length scripts in previous years.

My goals are to sell a script to Hollywood and also write for a big game like GTA. I already have a plan of action. It doesn't involve taking advice on a script I wrote in 4 hours for an OWC.

It's supposed to be a fun challenge. The last thing we want is to put up barriers to entering the OWCs.

It's also supposed to be a collaboration. Peer reviews are an integral part of the process. This isn't a competition with hired readers, all the reviews come from other writers. The bulk of those should be other entrants. We can't rely on non-participant feedback, though it's appreciated.

Reviewing has to be a requirement for entry, but we don't want to overburden anyone, and we don't want to intimidate new writers. The review process itself has to have some guidelines, I think, but that's a different matter.

I'll build on what others have already said for my suggestion:

When an OWC is announced, it should state that all participants are required to review at least half of the entries. A review must be substantial to count; there must at least be an opinion given, not just "I didn't understand it." Yes, substance is subjective, but let's set the bar low and not quibble over it.

Anyone who fails to meet the minimum requirement for providing feedback is put on probation for the next challenge. If they enter and fail to meet the minimum feedback requirement again, they're barred from entering until they provide feedback in a subsequent OWC.

Life can get in the way for anyone. A probation period gives anyone the opportunity to make good in the next OWC, but will identify the habitual offenders and bar them from subsequent OWCs.

One thing that will also help with the intimidation factor is to put a moratorium on shooting down other reviews in the review thread. Take it up elsewhere if you really must, keep review threads purely for reviews. Commenting or supporting other reviews is constructive, keep it positive.

Why can't it just be a friendly contest where the winner gets a mug? People shouldn't have to review, but they should be obliged to read and at least give the script a score.

If I want a real review, one I can trust, I know I have to pay for it.

Yes participation is a factor but only because we're missing out on votes. That's my angle, anyway. Clearly, I should refrain from insinuating things regarding the choices of others. Sorry.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I hear ya. Again, just wanted to push back on the idea of finding reviews helpful as "desperate."

Drop the reviews, just have ratings.

Boom!

Sorted.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect most folks are more interested in winning the respect of their peers than the feedback that people may or may nor feel obliged to leave, and probably won't take onboard anyways.

Quoted from PKCardinal

I hear ya. Again, just wanted to push back on the idea of finding reviews helpful as "desperate."

Well, they kinda are. I was desperate for them too once. I wanted something for nothing so I participated and I believe I did so above and beyond any obligation I had. I'd churn out the same advice over and over again... but then I started getting comments like I like the sound of my own voice, etc, so I slowed it down. I was doing it because I felt I owed the site something for all I had got from it, but instead it was looked at like I was doing it to massage my own ego.

Anyway, back on track (I've been smoking joints today, hit harder than the pipe or bong), wanting something for nothing is pretty desperate. However, I had no need to make it derogatory - which is what I did. So, sorry for that.

One of the things I love about SS is how many writers are willing to help other writers. Many writers have a hard time getting good feedback, or any feedback other than "it's great." The OWC exemplifies this.

I love helping people improve their writing. I love helping people become better storytellers. I love the different perspectives reviews give me. I love getting suggestions that excite me, things I might have overlooked or dismissed prematurely. Reviews aren't just about being desperate for notes, it's part of the collaborative process and it's really hard for some people to get for free. It's what makes SS great.

Quoted from Pleb

No. Reviews are key. Peeps want/need to see why other peeps liked or didn't like their scripts and writing.

Quoted from ReneC

Exactly... but there are more than enough good reviewers here already. What's the point in forcing somebody to do something they're not comfortable doing?

Not just that, but I gave lengthy reviews on some scripts but not all. It really mostly depended upon what I felt I could help that writer with at that particular time. If a script grabs me, it grabs me, I shouldn't feel compelled to write lengthy reviews on every script. I see it as more important that I read and vote on them.

SS is also a community. We should strive to build on that community, not detract from it by making the OWC an individual experience.

Quoted from ReneC

SS is also a community. We should strive to build on that community, not detract from it by making the OWC an individual experience.

Why can't it be both?

The only thing that really helps a writer is getting feedback. I guess attaboys can be encouraging, especially when a writer is new. Paid notes can be helpful in some ways, but often they don't represent the reaction of regular viewers. They feel like they are generated by a program in that they've been taught the same things about what a film is supposed to be. I love the opinions of just regular people who like movies. Those are worth way more to me.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I agree, and personally I don't see a problem with the status quo. But I've also seen an uptick in participants not participating, and any feedback informs the writer, even if it's to say it wasn't for you and why.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

Surely the site can't rely on the same reviewers doing the majority of the "work" all the time - The site needs to attract new members, new reviewers - Britman is a good example, if he sticks around he seems like he could add something.

If new people are encouraged to reveiw for the OWC it might encourage them to review outside of it as well, who knows.

You wouldn't feel compelled to leave lenghty reviews, as far as I can see no one has complained that you don't do your fair share for the OWC - I wouldn't expect a newbie to leave reviews as comprehensive as yours

Honestly, I don't care how indepth a newbies review would be - as long as you can see that the effort is there.

I did leave a few scripts lacking as I always do... but, like I always do, I figure others will take up the slack. As I said, the most important thing to me is that I read them all and vote before the deadline.

Quoted from Dreamscale

No. Reviews are key. Peeps want/need to see why other peeps liked or didn't like their scripts and writing.

If I was shown that previous OWC comments regularly leads to writers rewriting their scripts then I'd have no choice but to agree with you, which I'd like to... but, I suspect the likelihood of somebody actually going back to a script and rewriting it based on reader feedback is probably very low.

Now don't get me wrong, I think feedback is great and I've had some fantastic feedback off here that I put into my rewrites, but, in the context of the OWC I'm not confident it's worth all the effort reviewers put into it. Which is why I suggested a simple scoring system.

Quoted from Pleb

You may be surprised to find out that many of these OWC scripts have been picked up, entered into contests, etc. Hopefully, the writer went back and cleaned it up for those situations.

An for alot of peeps, it's about learning what they did wrong, and why it's wrong, or why I'm wrong for telling them they're wrong. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quoted from PKCardinal

I think anonymity should continue. It's a feature - not a bug

I dont think there's an OWC ive entered where ive not used the feedback given to re-write a script... and hopefully made it better, and a few of those have gone on to be picked up too.

Keep the reviews please.

So, I think the status is:

1) Reviews are helpful to some, not so much to others.

2) Since there is a voting process, we need peeps to vote to make the selection process meaningful. To have votes you need to have voters.

3) More voters are better than few voters in order to avoid skewing.

4) As we sit now, a growing number of reviews and comments come from non-participants. The trend is not in the right direction. In this OWC, if scripts got 20 comments, they probably got 10 or 11 votes (i.e., non-participants don't vote).

5) Some (Eldave for sure) are irked by the increasingly high level of writers who submit, receive comments on their scripts but do not reciprocate. It has less to do with the value of those comments/reviews than it does with the issue of equity. i.e., do your part. Others are doing theirs.

6) Many are in the it is what it is camp - leave it alone. It's worked fine forever. The scripts that were rated high in this one were all fine scripts - something must be working. That is a valid point.

Yet - Eldave is still irked. Maybe he is a noob. Or maybe he just doesn't like people showing up at potluck dinners without bringing any food themselves.

I'm with Dave here, and I'm pissed about the arseholes who don't do shit.

Quoted from Dreamscale

I'm with Dave here, and I'm pissed about the arseholes who don't do shit.

Kindred spirits

Reviews aren't just helpful for rewriting the OWC entries. They can help the writer for everything else they write. I firmly believe the OWCs are responsible for many writers improving here, and it's only in part because of the practice. It's also the reviews.

I've never received feedback that was only useful for the script it was in response to. I submitted to an OWC like two years ago and didn't re-write my short, but received plenty of feedback which helped me write future shorts. Not everything deserves a second draft.

Only one person so far has argued for no reviews at all. There's really no need for post after post suggesting we keep them. Nobody, aside from one person, is saying we shouldn't.

Of course we should keep the reviews. The main thread is about whether participating members should be forced to do them or else be punished in some way.

It's just not a good move. Yes, fine, be pissed off... whatever... but if we put in rules this will prevent members from entering in the first place. I don't think I'd enter either. Giving reviews freely of my own volition is one thing, being forced to... is another.

Whatever rule you come up with adds work for Dom and the mods, plus they can be circumnavigated. So for example, if you came up with a rule that stated all entrants must review at least 10 scripts, they could just put post a few words on 10 scripts that don’t help the writer at all.

Personally I think things should carry on as they are. As frustrating as it is to have entrants who do not participate, there’s enough who do. Most scripts get at least 2 pages worth of comments and hundreds of views.

Every single OWC I’ve entered I’ve gone through a stage where I feel like giving up entering future OWCs and giving up writing forever due to some of the brutality of the comments. But by the end of every single OWC I’ve figured something out about my script which has helped me write a new draft. For every unhelpful review where the reader says they just don’t get it, or ditches it on page 2 without offering anything constructive, there’s an equal amount of helpful comments.

I always have to remind myself that reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it. It is the most hostile writing environment you’ll ever find yourself in, so if readers do begrudgingly enjoy certain aspects of it – this is a good script or at least a great idea and is worth persuing. Yes, this is supposed to be fun and the prize is a crappy mug, but never underestimate ego and competiveness.

I’ve never had to do a major rewrite of my OWC script, but little changes here and there based on the majority of the comments, rather than individual opinion and bias is priceless.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

I always have to remind myself that reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it. It is the most hostile writing environment you’ll ever find yourself in, so if readers do begrudgingly enjoy certain aspects of it – this is a good script or at least a great idea and is worth persuing. Yes, this is supposed to be fun and the prize is a crappy mug, but never underestimate ego and competiveness.

And this is why we love it!

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

Hey Mark, genuinely interested to know if you consider yourself to be apart of this or feel like you are making the comment as an observer of the behavior, that behavior being "reviewers are reading these scripts with a desire to find fault. The last thing they want to do is to actually like it".

It's a very hard thing to make a judgement on, I think it's clear when a script is being bashed, but when is a comment not part of someone's desire to find fault? I'm very happy with my script, so definitely no hard feelings on any reviews that were made on my entry. But for examples sake, you made a comment on mine along the lines of me having an obsession with hands, but every time I mentioned a hand it was critical to the story, in my eyes it had purpose, yes there was a line that could have been written better and that has since been changed, but it still has the word 'hand', in my eyes this is finding fault where there is none, in yours it's constructive criticism (hopefully :p).

I'll use another example with one of my own comments. I said that I wasn't quite as thrilled with The Stowaway as you were, I acknowledged that it was brilliantly written, and had excellent suspense, but for me it was too comedy heavy to be a horror. The majority spoke and it took out the mug, but that's still my view, excellent craftsmanship but 8 pages of pure comedy in a 12 page horror. So is this finding fault where there isn't any, or my actual feeling? I'm putting words in your mouth now but you might think it's finding fault, but those were my thoughts and I stand by them.

So back to my original question, do you think you are part of the problem or just an observer?

I think Dustin is somewhat right about that being why we love it. There is something very sweet about making it through that gauntlet and getting the mug dispute all odds being against you.

I do think it can be taken too far though. I guess the people in receipt of negative comments will always be the ones to call out when they think that point has been reached.

Not sure if this is technically feasible, but how about the following to 'encourage' better participation levels...

1) OWC script comments are not immeadiately published on the script threads.
2) On the agreed date for comments to close they are then published for all.
3) EXCEPT for those who have not contributed with feedback on say 30% of scripts (or whatever number)
4) Those who do not contribute are also not eligible to vote or receive a score on their own script.
5) Those with no script in the OWC can contribute as normal and their comments would be released with everyone elses.

This would severely reduce the value of the OWC to those who do not contribute to them, whilst keeping everything else - except the hourly 'refresh and see if I've any new comments' aspect ;-)

Just a thought.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

Good suggestions Anthony - but I do enjoy that feeling of ignorant hope when the scripts are first posted only to have it chiseled away with every incoming comment, followed by finding solace in a bottle of wine wondering to myself "Why the fuck did I think rhyming dialogue was a good idea?" - It's what makes the OWC great!

Joking aside - Another plus for your suggestion is it would stop "bandwagon" comments. When reading through the comments I do sometimes think "Is that actually your opinion? or are you saying it because others have" - Some obviously come up multiple times because it's an issue for a lot of people - others I'm not so sure about

Downside - I love the buzz around here during an OWC, hiding the comments might make the place feel more like a ghost town during it and take away from the experience - Having the general thread to talk on will help but not sure if it will keep the interest peaked.

Oh, I have a suggestion - hear me out.
When the scripts are released, can the names or usernames of the participants not be revealed as well? - We pretty much know which regular users are participating anyway because they say so beforehand. That way they are not hiding behind anonymity (but the scripts are still anonymous) - Come voting time, we vote on both the scripts and whether the user contributed sufficiently to the challenge (Yeah, Okay, we will diasagree on the definition of 'sufficiently') - or it could be left up to a few trusted users to vote on whether a user contributed, people we know will vote fairly and honestly - anyway, the user votes can affect the scores of the scripts votes.
Also, if we know who the users are we can reach out to them and be like "Come on, get involved"

Ok as I write this I realize this is also more work for Don - But I don't mind helping out with counting votes or whatever, I'm an accountant so I must be trustworthy :-)

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

Most scripts get at least 2 pages worth of comments and hundreds of views.

The view counter is for the script thread though, not the script itself.

Everyone that competes is a part of it. It's just human nature. We can't bash an obviously good script so we find fault where we can. Appearing to break the rules can lose a script votes. So all it takes is for one writer to voice this possibility in a thread and others will jump on the bandwagon. Managing to sabotage a script gives their own a step up.

It's very nuanced, very subtle... but the tactics are there and I see them employed in every OWC - whether members want to admit it or not.

My two cents, since I'm the noob here as this was my first OWC.

I've been a non-active member since 2012. Since then I think I've read every OWC entry looking for scripts to produce. During an in-progress OWC, if I catch it in time, I'll often read the comments to help me weed out the better scripts. For past OWCs, I'll just look at the sticky and the writer's choice/favorites.

Even so, during this OWC I found it difficult at times to leave a constructive review for every script entered. As someone who reads scripts every day, it's very hard not to put down a bad script after reading the first couple of pages. It's very hard to read a poorly written script beginning to end without skimming, without digesting it all. And if that happens, it's very hard to leave a decent review. For that reason, a lot of my comments were general feedback not overly constructive, and I hope not overly negative.

I knew going in that whatever I wrote, no matter how good or bad, it would get bashed. Yes you do have to have some thick skin. But for a real noob noob who isn't familiar with how these are run, I can see how that can be off putting too.

Personally, I would't change anything. But if I did make a change, it would probably be the wording on the OWC sign up page.

So change this :

Participants are strongly encouraged to read and comment/review the other scripts submitted.

To something like:

Participants are required to read and comment/review the other scripts submitted. Not doing so will result in your script getting disqualified.

And if you want to move away from reviews for fear of scaring off noob participants, then just drive home that feedback is enough.

Participants are required to read and leave feedback on the other scripts submitted. Not doing so will result in your script getting disqualified.

You can also direct them to a sticky guidelines with more of a guide on how to leave feedback if so desired.

I'll certainly look forward to the next OWC, as long as it's not a romantic comedy!!

I agree with Bert and Dustin, there's never going to be a perfect solution and anything that resembles forcing new participants to review might backfire in the long run.

But as Britman said, have a big link at the start of the instruction page that goes to a sticky thread where someone lays out the case for doing reviews. IE, why members find it insulting if you don't participate, why contributing can be helpful to a newer writer, advice on how to leave feedback if you're not experienced with the more technical aspects.

Also, we could announce upfront that all new-ish participants are eligible to win "best OWC newbie". An award given out if a non-regular member distinguishes himself/herself reviewing. They get a blurb on the front page about the writer with links to their work (maybe a script review too).

That will probably change absolutely nothing, but at least there's no harm I can think of... except maybe a fight breaking out over who deserves best reviewer...

Regarding reviews of good scripts: I'm always looking to give the writer something. So, sometimes, the better the script, the more fine my notes. And, sometimes that can look like I'm a reviewer just looking to knock something. For example: The Stowaway. It was the only script this round that I gave a 5. But, that didn't stop me from saying that the final 4 pages felt a bit disconnected from the first 8.

(Are people really as competitive as Dustin says? I'm pretty naive, I'll admit. But, I just don't look at the OWC in that way. I want to win, sure. But, knocking others down to advance my chances? Weird.)

Quoted from PKCardinal

Agreed.

I may "knock" scripts left and right, but it has absolutely nothing to do with advancing my chances for success.

In fact, if you pay attention to my feedback, you'll find that I almost always "champion" a script, and it's not mine that I'm doing that on.

The best deserve to be recognized, but it's extremely rare that even the best are without issues.

We always have these debates after every OWC.

The number of reviews are fine, Imo, though I accept it's often buoyed by non participants.

The harshness is, when looked at in the cold light of day, intimidating and way over the top for scripts that are usually a few hours work at best. That same harshness has undoubtedly seen an enormous improvement in the quality of the writing over the years, however. Including my own.

Quoted from PKCardinal

I never do this

I was hesitant to enter this time around because (1) I'm terrible at writing suspense and (2) knew I'd be busy during the review week and wouldn't have had time to review many scripts.

Decided against entering, but didn't announce that to help with the anonymizing feature of the OWC. My busy-level at work is still too high to give these scripts the attention they deserve.

About deadweight (non-reviewers), there doesn't seem to be any solution that doesn't create more work for someone, distort the incentives to leave honest feedback, or both. However, if we accept that it's worth some work to experiment I would err on the side of the positive than the negative.

At academic conferences, researchers submit their papers to a complicated double-blind review process. I'm glossing over the details, but suffice to say that it's not at all a good fit for SS.

The point is that the conference will typically have a "Best Reviewer" award. It's a cheap plaque, but newbies like getting them.

One SS-able possibility is to have voting explicitly for "Best Reviewer" on the ballot. Include the non-participant reviewers as choices, too. It's obviously subjective, but if you disallow voting for oneself then I hope people would be honest. (Worst case: everyone votes for a bad reviewer "who couldn't possibly win" to up their own chances of winning Best Reviewer... and the crappy reviewer makes off with the title!)

A more labor-intensive possibility is to score each reviewer's participation. Someone would need to make a decision on what counts as a minimal contribution (voting?), mediocre contribution (brief comments?), and good contribution (detailed review?) and assign point values for each (say, 0.25, 0.50 and 1.00). Sum up each person's score, then either do something similar to writer's choice (post winner and close runners-up) or split the list into quintiles and list the names in each bucket (one star for lowest, five stars for highest).

That star rating could be factored in like an additional "voter," but I think that would encourage gaming the system.

I was going to say that those that deny it first are usually the biggest offenders... but from my observations both Jeff and Dave are very honest.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I was going to say that those that deny it first are usually the biggest offenders... but from my observations both Jeff and Dave are very honest.

Thanks, mate

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I was going to say that those that deny it first are usually the biggest offenders... but from my observations both Jeff and Dave are very honest.

I thank you as well.

Quoted from DustinBowcot

I was going to say that those that deny it first are usually the biggest offenders... but from my observations both Jeff and Dave are very honest.

Has it been long enough yet to deny it without arousing suspicion?

Maybe I'm naive, but would people really do that in a friendly competition with no financial gain? And are some reviewers swayed by those reviews that have come before? - times like this I wish I had studied pshycology.

I second your comment about Dave - very selfless, I've seen him give countless advice without ever asking for anything in return

Jeff on the other hand... Kidding! His comments may cause controversy but you can't deny the honesty

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

Maybe I'm naive, but would people really do that in a friendly competition with no financial gain? And are some reviewers swayed by those reviews that have come before? - times like this I wish I had studied pshycology.

It's just gamesmanship and a little bit does no harm. In fact, for me, it enhances the whole thing.

You only have to look at the reviews to see they have been swayed by the previous ones. Sometimes, it looks like they've outright copied certain parts from other reviews and not bothered to read the script at all. Imagine how much time that will save.

Wherever humans can manipulate things to their own ends they will inevitably do so... some will go even further than gamesmanship and resort to outright dishonesty.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

I second your comment about Dave - very selfless, I've seen him give countless advice without ever asking for anything in return

Bloody legend if you ask me!

On that other thread it often gets lost, so...

Happy Birthday, Jeff! :)

Quoted from LC

On that other thread it often gets lost, so...

Happy Birthday, Jeff! :)

Thank you, Libby!

Happy Birthday, Jeff!

I’m just going to mirror what all the previous reviewers said and say “Happy birthday Jeff!”

Quoted from LC

On that other thread it often gets lost, so...

Happy Birthday, Jeff! :)

INT. LIVING ROOM - NIGHT

Dave lumbers through with a beer in his
hand.

He nearly trips on his carpet before entering
the

DEN

He plops down in a desk chair (Dave never sits- he always plops),
turns on his computer.

DAVE
(a bit drunk)
Let's see what's going on at SS.

Dave is one of those guys who talks to himself, You know the
kind.

DAVE
(surprised)
What the fuck. It's Jeff's
(belch)
Birthday.

He tap his keyboard.

INSERT COMPUTER SCREEN

-H-A-P-P-Y B--I-R-T-H - D-A-Y, J-E-F-F.

BACK TO SCENE

Dave taps his chin - thinks.

DAVE
I could use another beer.

No one needed one less than Dave.

Dave stands. rushes out but runs smack into the door.

INT. DOOR - DAY

Dave wedged in between the panels. Can't move.

DAVE
(muffled)
Knew I shouldn't have gone on the site.

FADE IN AND OUT.

Quoted from Warren

Bloody legend if you ask me!

Thanks Matt and Warren - darn nice of ya

INT. HOUSE - BEDROOM - DAY

Pia slowly wakes up at 8:30am, stretches then reaches for her laptop. She logs into Facebook, gets a notification that it's JEFF's birthday.

Pia squeals with excitement, hurries to the --

KITCHEN

-- to grab a beer from the fridge, pops it open and chugs it.

She grabs her phone and texts Jeff a happy birthday message, promises Jeff to make it a day long celebration.

Jeff's delighted and promises to celebrate all day as well.

LATER

9pm to be exact, Pia and Jeff are both trying to figure out what they are celebrating...

Quoted from Grandma Bear

This has the bones for a feature!

Quoted from eldave1

This has the bones for a feature!

Bones are good!!!

Happy (slightly late) birthday Jeff. Hope you had a good one

Quoted from Warren

I don’t see there being any problem with the OWC, nor am I simply an observer as I take part in most of them.  It’s understandable psychology. To thine own self be true. When I enter these OWC’s  my ego wants my script to impress and be the among the top scores, if not the overall winner. Therefore no matter how good my intentions are, I know there will be a certain bias on my part when reviewing. When I do come across a script that impresses me despite this bias, I then heap praise where I think it is due unreservedly.

Based on my observations over the years, there are a number of participants in every OWC who want to find fault. Their review is an attempt to influence those who read comments before reading the script and to cast dispersions. There are those who skim read scripts, trying to review them all in one sitting. They tend to drop out early in the script at the slightest irritant or miss important elements. There are those who mimic what the majority of the comments say to make it appear that they’ve read the scripts. And of course, you get those who enter but do not participate in the feedback stage at all.

All the above is understandable – basic human psychology.

On the plus side,  you get those who not only read the scripts properly, but take the time to offer some detailed constructive feedback to most scripts. I’ve read and offered feedback to pretty much every script since around 2014 (not sure about the year, roughly then anyway) in every  OWC I’ve entered (and a few I didn’t). The level of feedback I give depends on how advanced I believe the writer to be and how useful the advice could be, especially if someone has already stated what I would suggest. I’m not always as constructive as I should be – I get cranky sometimes. I’m certainly not as constructive as some who offer amazing and very detailed feedback. Those are to be commended.

For me, it’s important I recognise and accept all the above because I always go through a bad stage in the OWC and hit rock bottom when my script receives brutal comments. The first comment on Ganglers floored me and I wanted to throw my laptop through a window.  I was in a sulk for a whole day lol.

At the end, when I filter out comments that are not useful in the slightest and find the pattern of comments that are, I end up realising what needs addressing in the script and sort it out. My OWC scripts have ended up being the best things I’ve ever written (IMO of course) because of it.

I don’t think the OWC, warts and all, needs changing much. Maybe changing the wording like Britman has suggested is enough. There are plenty of participants, a range of reviews to help the writer and it’s been going for years. If there was a fundamental problem, these would have stopped years ago and folks wouldn’t get hyper with excitement when a new one is announced.

It honestly never crossed my mind to be tactical with the reviews - I just read the scripts and wrote what I felt. But, I didn't go into this with the mentality of trying to "win" as I know my writing isn't good enough yet (Not putting myself down, it's just a fact - I'm a new writer still learning)

I only had 2 aims going into this - Overall more positive feedback than the last OWC and get Jeff to read the whole thing - Tick Tick

If people believe these tactics go on in the public reviews - What do we think happens come private voting? Would people purposely vote scripts lower in the hope it pushes them up? - My faith in humanity is constantly bashed lol
Just looking at my scoring spreadsheet, I voted 8 scripts either Excellent/Very good (It would have been 9 but I docked points on one for being too graphic)

Of course some will do that... some will even PM other members revealing their script to up the points. I was approached by somebody once but I publicly outed them. Gamesmanship is one thing, outright cheating is abhorrent.

Some people are unbelievable - it's just a bit of fun. I'm still in shock that Don has to go through and remove self votes - who the hell votes for their own script lol

Some are connected up on social network platforms and interact with each other all the time. How easy to share the scripts they wrote whilst all genuinely having the intention of voting 100% fairly and definitely leave an impartial review.

People will even lie to themselves... believe themselves completely innocent, and genuine, and honest.

You see it all if you look long enough.

To be honest though, I don't think this is about winning a mug or even winning as such. It's more about ego.

Well, I definitely try, and think I am 100% honest in my reviews. Jeff usually complains to me how few reads his script has and I always ask which one is his so I can give it a read. Never ever has he told me which one it is. I think he wants people to be honest and I guess he thinks I can't, but I would argue about that. Kevin revealed to me that he and Dena co-wrote one. He told me it was bad, so I told him I wouldn't read it then. He knows, I'm always honest with reviews. I do know that some people like to pm and ask for reviews, but no one does that to me anymore. I'd like to think it's because I will not sugar coat. Same goes for the voting. I did vote for my own once, but immediately pm'd Don and asked him to remove it.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

Amen to all of this.

We had a discussion in a OWC once about self voting and I was surprised by the number of people who did that, and how they attempted to justify it as being fine to do so. I was pleased when Don said he deducts self-voting. I think he also said, even taking the self-voting into account, it never affected the overall outcome.

Quoted from Matthew Taylor

Some people are unbelievable - it's just a bit of fun. I'm still in shock that Don has to go through and remove self votes - who the hell votes for their own script lol

I always vote for my own script.

That doesn't mean I vote it as the highest score, but I give it a grade. I give every single script a grade.

You can never take bias, in some for or another, out of the equation as we're all human.

But the scripts that do reasonalbly well in terms of decent reviews then do well in the voting, so bias or not it seems to be the liked scipts that ascend in each OWC.

So apart from participation levels of some people who enter scripts but don't review... maybe we don't need to fix it?

Quoted from Dreamscale

I always vote for my own script.

That doesn't mean I vote it as the highest score, but I give it a grade. I give every single script a grade.

Probably shouldn't, Jeff - regardless of how you rate yours. It causes work as they have to go through and delete all of those that voted on their own scripts.

Quoted from eldave1

Probably shouldn't, Jeff - regardless of how you rate yours. It causes work as they have to go through and delete all of those that voted on their own scripts.

Agreed.

Totally off subject, but I was bummed that my OWC didn't make the top eight cut.  Or nine or ten or whatever.  And that most folks "didn't get it"

But then I remind myself that my absolute worst, piece of dog shit, not written in correct format, 3 day drunken bender found footage script THE CREEPS has had 4060 downloads in the last three years.   And I consider it to be the most embarrassingly inept and lazy thing I've ever written.

Yep.  And it's gotten more downloads and more praise than anything I've ever done.  I continue to SMH over this little tidbit.

It's become impossible to predict what people will embrace or not embrace.  That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.

"It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.

I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!

Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.

End of rant.

I know I keep saying this, but the "views counter" is not for the script itself. It's for the thread. There's no way of knowing how many times the script has been opened or downloaded. Unless Don can check on his server. In other words, that's how many times people and bots have opened the thread. :)

Quoted from Grandma Bear

Downloads, comments, threads, responses, etc. It's gotten 4060 hits. I've had projects up for ten years that haven't gotten those numbers. I've gotten several messages and responses from people who thought it was great and the project was sold in under three days of posting the script.

IMO, it was an easy read, no real headache and quick to get through. But it was never very good. And I'm using my own script as an example.

Quoted from ericdickson

That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.

"It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.

I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!

Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.

End of rant.

Can only speak for me, but when I write something akin to "easy read" is has nothing to do with the complexity of the story. For me it means:

- I understood things the first time I read them. Can't tell you how many scripts where I've read a passage and had to re-read it to get what the writer wanted me to see - to get my bearings straight.

- Also happens when there are multiple characters and the writer does not do a good job on reminding us of who the characters are. e.g., DAVE will appear on a page after not having been mentioned for 30 pages and a reader has to go back to figure out who Dave was.

- Crisp and clean format wise. There aren't a ton of obvious errors and typos - those are really reading speed bumps - they detract from a reader's immersion into the story.

Long winded way of saying - easy and read - and simple story - are not the same things in my mind. I could have a simple story that is a difficult read and a complex story that is an easy one.

Quoted from eldave1

I've lost count of how many reviewers say - "This was relatively quick and everything made sense.  I didn't see any real errors.  Nice job!"

Forget story.  Forget characters.  Plot.  Mystery.  Foreshadowing.  Subtext.  Style.

I'm seeing a trend.  Everything needs to be spelled out right away.  Reviewers are confused by page 2 about what something going on in the scene means so they jump ship.  And that just isn't how real films are paced or put together.

Why don't you read to page 3 to see if that piece of the puzzle gets worked out.  What if it's a mystery?  And you're not supposed to know what that thing means yet?

This is just my opinion and how I see things.  I could be wrong.

One thing is for certain.  Without a doubt.  When it comes to OWC, Nicholl, Page, Screencraft, Austin or whatever contest...

Format has become more important than story, character and plot.  If it looks clean...is an easy read...it will advance.   It will be praised.

I'm not arguing against.  This hard fact has pushed me to really streamline my action and descriptions.  To make my stuff more reader friendly.

Quoted from ericdickson

You make some excellent points.

I've come to appreciate that story is everything -- but, the technical side matters, too. It goes to the old baseball saying: Baseball is 90% mental. The other half is physical.

So, why not strive to master both?

I hate it when I make technical mistakes that impede my storytelling. (My submission this round was a great example.)

As to subtext and subtlety... I agree, this particular group, for the most part, prefers straight-forward storytelling. Part of that, I think, is that when not done well, subtext and subtlety just look like lazy writing. Done right -- it's amazing to see.

Another part of that comes from OWC's being shorts challenges. You've got to get to character and story very quickly. There's simply not as much room for development in those other areas.

All that said, I think you do see comments on storytelling, character, etc. here. They're just overwhelmed sometimes by the easier to spot/write technical-based comments.

Quoted from ericdickson

Format has become more important than story, character and plot. If it looks clean...is an easy read...it will advance. It will be praised.

I wish I could, but I can't and don't.

My OWC didn't place either, and I'm rather shocked to see some that did.

I purposely placed a few mistakes in mine to throw peeps off, but it was about as clean as they come, yet peeps didn't like it at all.

Next time, I'm going to throw in mistakes all over the place and see if it does better.

Quoted from PKCardinal

Yes. The idea is to master both. But that's hard :'(

It's the way I tell 'em - Frank Carson RIP

Now we have the bemoaners.

Isn't this the usual trend with OWCs?

First we get the anger at the none readers, then we move on to the bemoaners. 'My script was great, yet it still lost.' Must be something to do with the readers. Yeah, that's it.

My script lost - must have been the readers fault, a conspiracy, or possibly a Beaver Moon.

Format is only part of the equation and story, character, plot all still trump it in everything I've seen.

There was some recent research done by Stephen Follows who looked at over 12000 scripts read and scored by Screencraft's professional readers.

As he says in part of his summation...
"The biggest correlations for success are within the subcategories of characterization, plot and style. Among the least important factors are formatting, originality and the script’s hook."

It's an interesting research piece, I think someone has posted the link before but just for ease - https://stephenfollows.com/analysis-of-12309-feature-film-script-reports/

Stephen was also interviewed on Ashley Scott Meyer's Selling Your Screenplay podcast - it's an interesting listen.

Quoted from ericdickson

They will say the first thing. But not the second thing.

Sometimes it doesn't have a single thing to do with your writing. Sometimes, people just don't like your story.

Or they might have liked your story if they hadn't read a bunch of similar themed stories already.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

But the scripts that do reasonalbly well in terms of decent reviews then do well in the voting, so bias or not it seems to be the liked scipts that ascend in each OWC.

I think this is the most important thing, the cream will rise to the top regardless. In my time I don’t remember there being a really surprising Writer's Choice. A good script is a good script and despite everything that will show as the end of the day.

Quoted from Warren

No, not always. There's always a few surprises that pop into the faves, and I just have to wonder how that happens.

As for mine not making it, I have to blame it on Beaver Moons. ;D ;D ;D

I think they may only be surprises for you Jeff based on your personal taste and the reviews you gave, just because you bail after a couple of pages doesn't mean everyone else does ;-)

So I'll re-phrase...

In general, excluding the odd outlier review(er), those that get mostly positive reviews do well.

Quoted from ericdickson

Yes. The idea is to master both. But that's hard :'(

Ain't that the truth!

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

How many scripts did I bail on this time around? Not very many at all, and I gave every single entrant a real chance...many I struggled through to the bitter end.

Quoted from Warren

I agree with this. There have been a couple of times where I could have argued over who I thought should be first versus second. But that's only my own taste. I have never seen an instance where an undeserving script won the challenge

Quoted from Warren

Quoted from DustinBowcot

Sometimes it doesn't have a single thing to do with your writing. Sometimes, people just don't like your story.

Yup

Jeff - does you browser not show the winking smiley emoticon I intentionally added to the sentence to denote I was teasing you?

;-)
:-)
:-)

Quoted from PKCardinal

As to subtext and subtlety... I agree, this particular group, for the most part, prefers straight-forward storytelling. Part of that, I think, is that when not done well, subtext and subtlety just look like lazy writing. Done right -- it's amazing to see.

I completely agree with this.

I’ve struggled with this since my very first script. I like making the reader think, giving them just enough to come to the conclusion themselves. There is nothing better than subtext done well in a script, but there will always be an argument about how much is too much. The writer obviously knows the script’s meaning, so when a reader doesn’t get it how do we really know whose fault this is?

This is especially difficult in an OWC. So we've already discussed how people may or may not be looking for faults. Subtext is a really easy one to pick on, it's really easy to say I don’t get it when there is every chance that they don’t because it’s subtext you may not actually get it. I do think the other issue, especially with OWC's is how quick people may or may not be trying to get through the scripts. Subtext my very well be missed if you are just trying to get your pile for the day done.

So I think there are a lot of ways you can increase your chances of making it closer to the top of the pile. I'd like to believe that story is everything, but in OWC's that is never going to be the case. Some readers will stop reading if the format, spelling, grammar is bad. So make sure the fundamentals are there. Write a story that everyone can understand, keep the subtext to an absolute minimum or at least keep things as straight forward as possible, don’t give people a reason not to understand your script. Going back to a very controversial topic, give your character’s motivations and your story meaning, sure not everyone might care if things don’t add up, but others will, I will be one of those people. And then of course write a great story (obviously the hardest part :P).

Note that when I say making the reader think, I don’t mean about the meaning of a word, or the character’s motivations.

I like making a reader think by using a word they're not familiar with, it's good for increasing their vocabulary ;-)

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

Jeff - does you browser not show the winking smiley emoticon I intentionally added to the sentence to denote I was teasing you?

;-)
:-)
:-)

OOOPS. You never know, though, Anthony.

It's funny, cuz peeps sometimes/usually hate what I have to say, but when I look back at all the feedback on any script, mine is usually the longest and most detailed...even when I bail very early.

I really wish I could just say, "Great job, really enjoyed this", and move on...but alas...I can't.

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

I like making a reader think by using a word they're not familiar with, it's good for increasing their vocabulary ;-)

You do so at your own risk when a dumbass like me reads your work :P

Quoted from AnthonyCawood

I like making a reader think by using a word they're not familiar with, it's good for increasing their vocabulary ;-)

I had to Google vocabulary

Warren - lol

Dave - lolol

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

Hey Mark, sorry I seem to have missed this reply. Cheers.

I definitely understand the rock bottom moments, I have those constantly during OWC's. I'm the kind of person who can even turn a positive comment negative in my head ha-ha. Always easier coming back to it after a few hours and finding the useful stuff and letting the rest slide off your back. I suppose there are also writers I admire and respect, and it’s generally their approval that means the most to me, while other comments hold no weight at all (I'm sure most people feel the same way to a certain extent).

Last thought (well -probably not). My preference would be for reviewers not to comment on other reviewer comments until after the vote is in. In many OWCs a thread can get hijacked (I guilty here as well) by cross commenting.

Quoted from eldave1

I had to Google vocabulary

I had to Google Google.

Quoted from PKCardinal

I had to Google Google.

Quoted from eldave1

Guilty as well, I agree that this shouldn't happen. I won't be doing it in the future. I did try move my comments to another thread but that got shut down.

Quoted from Warren

Guilty as well, I agree that this shouldn't happen. I won't be doing it in the future. I did try move my comments to another thread but that got shut down.

It happens every OWC - many times I have engaged. I like the engagement and think that good things can come from it - we just need to have a different place other than the specific script thread to do it. Or not...:)

I sometimes read comments, other times I do not. But they never affect my reviews.
But yeah, a few readers seem to repeat comments. That's always strange to me to understand why.

Quoted from ericdickson

It's become impossible to predict what people will embrace or not embrace.  That being said, I am seeing a trend these days (The Creeps as a prime example) that the easier something is to read, the better a review that script will get.

"It's an easy read!"   Is the first thing I see in a positive review.  But an easy read does not equal a good script.  It just makes it an easy read.

I think sometimes people throw story, character, mystery, plotting, subtext, foreshadowing, all those silly little details to the wind and think any easy read = great script!  I didn't have to think too hard or anything!  5 stars!

Don't get me wrong.  This isn't a rant against the importance of streamlined action and descriptions and making the script reader friendly.  I'm just saying.  There's more to a script than not making someone think too hard.

End of rant.

Easy to read isn’t just about making sure the script complies to some formatting standard from a book, most professional script readers will ignore formatting issues as long as they are not terrible; there’s data to back that up as Anthony posted earlier.

Easy to read means reading a page and understanding it without having to re-read sections or to stop, go out of the story and think for a bit. The reader also has to buy into the story to stick with it. The most critical part of ‘easy to read’ is writing a line that makes the reader want to read the next line. If the line doesn’t hook the reader, if what you are saying to the reader is “This bit may be dull or confusing but read more lines and it will all pay off in the end, I promise” then you will lose the attention of most.

There are not many people in the world with that skill. Therefore writers do tend to favour the familiar to give them more of a chance of hooking the reader without explanations that may be boring or seem like obvious exposition. This is one of the reasons there is not much originality in mainstream movies and why originality or complex plots with great payoffs are the exception rather than the norm. TV is a bit different. Viewers expect a long ride, so if they dig the characters and enjoy the journey they will stick with it.

I always attempt to do something a bit different with my OWC. I know this puts me at a bit of a disadvantage but it’s how I approach most stories. A different spin on something, something new. I knew with Ganglers I’d have trouble. If zombies, vampires or giant spiders pop up in a story, they don’t even need an explanation of how they got there. They are not real, yet readers automatically accept them and know the rules of their existence. However, as the writer it is up to me to make that an easy read and part of this is to explain to the reader what a Gangler is, where it came from and what rules apply. I knew that was tough going in and for some I didn’t quite pull it off, but after the OWC I got the feedback I needed to help me refine the story, so hopefully it is easier to read now.

Quoted from MarkRenshaw

Dead on.

Quoted from khamanna

I sometimes read comments, other times I do not. But they never affect my reviews.
But yeah, a few readers seem to repeat comments. That's always strange to me to understand why.

Most of the time (not all), I write my review before reading other's. This leads to quite a bit of repetition in my comments, as many times we're all seeing the same issues.

What I started doing this round: after writing my review, I would read the other comments before hitting submit. Sometimes I would go ahead and hit submit, even if it was repetitive feedback. But, several times I took out the repetitive comments. Once, it even saved me from a complete misreading of the script. (First Responders). I still left the comments because I wanted the writer to know I missed the mark.

Repeat comments are fine, it's just when they have obviously been copied that is the issue.

It's a subtle difference... but you can often tell from the flow and wording of the review.

You did the right thing, as did I, on that thread by voicing our real opinion. A couple more would definitely have only realised what was going on by reading the comments either before reading the script or before commenting themselves. The writer even complained that I was the only one that didn't get it as though I was the one being dishonest.

Quoted from PKCardinal

Most of the time (not all), I write my review before reading other's. This leads to quite a bit of repetition in my comments, as many times we're all seeing the same issues.

I tend to do the same. I prefer to read and review, then reads other comments. Reason being that if I read other comments first, it will most likely influence my own interpretation of the read.

I have some sympathy with Eric.

There is an undoubted bias towards certain styles. Fast paced, simple.. even basic/generic, linear stories that are well written. One of those with a solid twist at the end is the sweet spot for the OWC.

It's partly the culture of the contest... Everyone rushes to read them all as quickly as possible. Subtlety tends to get lost.

It's partly that that is a solid model for a short story anyway.

It's partly because trying to tackle a more ambitious story leaves you with less time to polish.

Every contest has its own culture, as does every festival.

Perhaps, in a wider sense, it's also a microcosm of what's happened in the real world : simple stories are easier to understand and are generally more popular because of that. In a straight popularity contest that type of story will be liked more by a majority.

There are ways around it, if people want to try different things : it can simply be a case of trying different genes with an emphasis in the theme on the slow burn, depth, theme, ambiguity, magical realism, abstract etc.. Take your pick.

It's a small piece of an old debate. David Mamet wrote a book about it (Bambi vs Godzilla?) and how he thinks readers have destroyed 'Cinema' because its become the case that a script that is enjoyable to read has become considered a good script, while from his point of view the real script is the abstract form behind the words, the audio /visual blueprint that will be the actual movie. He thinks readers have lost, or never had, the ability to discern the actual movie behind the words.

I agree with him to a large extent , as it happens, but that debate has been lost.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films

"...while from his point of view the real script is the abstract form behind the words..."

It sounds like I have something in common there with David Mamet.

For me, when I really appreciate something, I feel a certain sensibility that
can often be difficult to explain, but can only be perceived.

I think Eric's gonna be just fine.

If I'm not mistaken his OWC 'Short'' inspired a feature length script (just posted) which he spat out in a matter of a week or two.

https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1557441021/s-0/highlight-/#num0

Wow.
Now that's an achievement!

Just read through all the comments. I particularly agree with Mark's points.

What makes a script an easy read is not compliance with some kind of rule system. In fact, the main reason for breaking the rules, assuming one has learned them, is precisely to make the script more readable. Or maybe I should say bending the rules.

I sympathize with what Rick and Eric are talking about. Sometimes something that makes for a great movie is not conducive to crafting a readable script. I've given the Billy Wilder example many times...you can start a movie with a courtroom scene, but not a screenplay.

But that's where the value of the OWC is. Most people here are some level of non-pro writer sending scripts out into the world where they have a very slim chance of being noticed. It's a Darwinist world. Learning how to build your script and story so that it's readable gives it a much better chance of surviving. As Mark said, the goal is to keep the reader going to the next line. I used to call it TTP: turn the page, Your goal is to get the reader to turn the page.

That DOES limit what a writer can do. If you're not a pro writer that's in demand your story building options are more narrow.

The OWC does a really good job...because of the feedback...of helping a writer learn some of the things that might slow a reader. Some examples: a slow opening, too many characters, anything that creates confusion.

I just picked up a novel at the library. The first three paragraphs were weirdly confusing. But by the end of the page the writer sprang his surprise and things became clear. When you have a properly published book in your hand, you'll assume the writer and editors know what they're doing, so you give the story some rope. But if that's a manuscript you're reading you might be inclined to put it down at the first sign of confusion.

There are strategies you can learn from these OWCs about how to grab and hold a reader with your story and writing style.

Print Topic