I cleared my backlog and am ready to do some more reviews, if people still want them.
A few requests:
1. Read some of my other reviews. If that's not the style of feedback you want, don't ask.
2. Please, no public or private flaming or review dissections. Private requests for clarification are fine.
3. No revenge reviews.
If you violate the above terms I will out you as an oath-breaker and have Orcus smite you with the curse of a thousand blue screen crashes. :)
Also, I'll now give priority to people who don't have any reviews yet.
And when this is over I'm going to have to find a less addictive hobby. Heroin, maybe... ;)
A Participant says:
Let me be honest... I'm dying to read your review of Gary's script.
I'd love a review. I already know my action description is over-written, but you can chalk that up to the time-limit, same with typos and lack of research (eg, I call the square outside the Colosseum by its modern name, but no character references it, so I think I can get away with it). I have my suspicions about other stuff that may be problematic, but if you're happy to read it I'm happy to receive.
Thank you Lauri - if you have time our script 'Hungry for Death' has not received any reviews and I appreciate any constructive criticism you are willing to share :)
I could be wrong here, but I think, since this is a ZvG forum, that Lauri meant reviews of the ZvG rewrites.
Additionally, the same goes for me. I'd be willing to review a revision or two. My reviews are lengthy. See Brandon C. Lay's review I left him.
Mine are based on your creativity and structure and not my opinion of what zombies should be or if you missed historical markers.
Yes - only ZvG for the moment.
Lauri I would like to apologize if the public discussion of your review was untoward. It was not my intention to flame. I notice it is on your list of things you do not appreciate. That same day Glen and I had a private conversation we wished had been public. I decided to go the route of the forums when posing my questions because I thought it may generate a dialogue as Glen's and my discussion very likely would have. So knowing now it is not your practice to have it done this way, I will refrain from doing it in the future.
I would be interested in your take on my ZvG draft, Glenn. It's #104. Thanks!
Geez Lauri, you had to go and review the one I picked out already. ;)
Anyway, I've posted my review of Nathan's as well. I used Lauri's style (since that's how my notes looked anyway). If anyone else is looking for a similar breakdown, let me know. I think I can handle another review before I need to cleanse my gray matter of all things zombie.
If anyone wants to review a slightly more horror-based version of the script (though I employed off screen violence judiciously), then feel free to review mine. I've already made 2 pages of notes of things I would change, if given another week (I'll probably end up actually writing it out, just for peace of mind).
what's the deal with those cindi adams reviews?
did somebody (with power) complain or what?
A lot of people have taken exception to a lot of reviews. Not sure why but it probably makes her feel like her efforts aren't appreciated. Not seen too much on the forums concerning her particularly, tho. Maybe she got a nasty SM? This whole review the reviewer trend is a little tiresome, and - frankly - should be done privately IMO.
Glen's original review the reviewer post actually generated some interesting discussion, but cone on folks, a review is an opinion. If the reviewer backs those opinions up with examples, great, you've got something to work on. They might be wrong but getting immediately defensive won't help improve our writing.
For the most part I agree with you Antony. However is it so unfair to believe that perhaps a reviewer has as much to learn from the writer as the writer has to learn from the reviewer? I think getting defensive and hostile is pointless pretty much across the board in terms of a discussion but I think the forums is the best place to have a dialogue about a review. Assuming it stays in the spirit of creative discussion, I think since the work is public, the review is public, why not the discourse that pertains to it? It's one thing if you privately request notes, however people's reviews of your work affect others' opinions. If a reviewer you respect says, don't bother with this... many won't.
I think it should be split on the site anyhow... it should have a review section, where questions cannot be posed and its only for a full analysis of the work. Then there would be a critique section which would be for notes, questions and discussion of the work... posted on the forum and open to all. It sounds like why bother... but when the two very different forms are married together as they are here, they end up often hindering the purpose of both and you end up with a hodgepodge of both or neither. Sometimes the reviews end up as just synopsis's of the work presented with a few comments.
If there was more options, where uniformity in the venues for feedback could take place, I think there would be a much better organization in the process.
Many people clamor about the lack of an edit button on posts... if there was one, the luxury of quoting someone would be difficult. I see why it is not included. (However they could include a log of each edit...) either way point is... i think the thing to clamor for instead is a different series of feedback options.
I also think that AS should provide a monthly contest for reviewers (and if my idea were implemented those who take part in the critiques). I think those that take the time to review and critique should be rewarded. They have a contest for just about everything else... even Actors now. I think they are very generous as it is... but speaking for myself I would be willing to lose a thousand bucks from the original screenplay prize or test movie categories for the sack of spreading the love.
This would generate an interest in doing thorough reviews with the same professionalism that most approach the screenplay writing with. Also it would very likely stimulate the quantity in reviewers getting a broader scope of people's tastes, thoughts, ideas... etc. The same thing they did with the rewrite contest. They generated a large interest in rewrites... which is a huge portion of the business. Consider how many writers scripts go through these days.
This would also keep people from "sabotaging" other's script review averages because AS would have reason to monitor such things. No more: YOUR SCRIPT WAS SOOOOOO GREAT. AND FUNNY AND ORIGINAL. FIVE STARS. Oh, so your movie has a 4.75 average with only one actual review... that gave you two stars... cool.
I realize AS is a newer company and site... and it's really f'ing awesome and they seem to continually be trying new things... and I think this is the next area of opportunity for them.
i agree with what you say but just want to put my opinion on the "full review". cindi adams stated that she was only reading the first 5 pages of each submission... still a personal, time consuming task, especially if she makes it through all 66 final drafts. she didn't misrepresent what she was doing.
the idea of doing a "full read and review" is taxing and overwhelming for most people. yet most expect others to do it for them. if a reading reads to page 10 and then stops with a reason then that should be accepted as a script they couldn't get through for whatever reason. many industry folks will say they know from the first 3 pages whether a script is worthy of their time. that information is valid and should be respected.
for a contest like this where every script starts with the same premise i can see where one would read the first 10 pages and then the last 10 pages, and with that alone they could write a pretty good review.
criteria for reviews come in all shapes and sizes. you can comment on the writing itself. ie - someone could be an amazing wordsmith but cram so many beautiful words in that it slows down the read OR someone could tell a great story but their formatting and style raises red flags.
one other thing - don't people realize that a glowing review coming from someone who just signed up that day is just a personal plug that can't be trusted?! i've seen a few of those and it makes me not want to read that script at all because i think the writer is just.... [omit].
okay - either this forum is playing weird ricks or i 'm wondering what i was drinking last night, but those cindi adams reviews are back to where they were and her "useless review" status has changed back to normal.
correction - her reviews dated 9/6 are still "useless" and the earlier reviews are still good.
i don't get this place.
Cindy Adams - the original reviewer
Cindi Adams - the useless version
Hope that helps clear things up.
"for a contest like this where every script starts with the same premise i can see where one would read the first 10 pages and then the last 10 pages, and with that alone they could write a pretty good review."
Lol, no. Please never do that. Anyone.
A.T. - your review record is amazing! you really know what you're talking about. that's for sure.
now where the phuck is the sarcastic smilie on this thing?
I don't need to have a reviewer's resume to tell you why reading the first and last 10 pages of a script is just an all-around bad idea.
I agree that a review can be taxing. That's why it would be split as I recommended. And people who wanted to review would be more likely to read the whole thing if a grand or more a month were stimulating it.
The critique or even a NOTES section would be the place for those that just read the first ten pages and went... hey listen... this ain't working because xyz... move on. But a review needs to be more... and I'm not going to restate what I already put in different words... as you said Lisa you mostly agree.
I think I'm going to broach it to AS through the... whatever channels that entails (probably feedback area).
That'll have to wait until tomorrow... if I fall asleep right this instant, I'll get four hours before work tomorrow. Haha
If you still have room and are willing, i'd love to get a review of my revision. But I know your may be pressed for time, so who knows.
This is one of my first works (my first full-on tackle of a lengthy script) so I'd be really interested in seeing some reviews of people being critical of what I've written. I want to write for a living, but there's rarely appropriate exchanges in my country for those like me. I'd thank any criticism dearly. Thanks.