Nicholl 2009

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by lordmanji View Post
    come on guys, it's so easy to delete your name from the title. youve spent months and years working on it, why not take the extra ten minutes to do that?

    You're talking to about 4,000 people. What are the chances there will be those who are less PDF friendly than others?


    When you are dealing with "populations" there is always going to be a variance of skill levels involved. Perhaps it is as evidenced in the caliber of screenplays often entered as well.


    When dealing with such a large number of individuals, the idea is to make it "dummy proof."

    Leave a comment:


  • lordmanji
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    come on guys, it's so easy to delete your name from the title. youve spent months and years working on it, why not take the extra ten minutes to do that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    It all relates to what is "efficient" in the handling of either physical screenplays and their attendant applications, as opposed to the handling of PDF screenplays and their attendant applications.


    Anytime there is a shift from one way of doing things (paper) to another way of doing things (PDF) there will be a transition period where there are some innefficiencies.


    If Nicholl's past history of professionalism is any indication, I am sure they will find a way to make the transtion as best as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • 12916studios
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by TheBangBangBoogie
    Oops. I'm guilty of this.

    Why not shoot the offenders an email asking them to resubmit w/o the offending info?
    You ever try emailing 1500 people who didn't get it right the first time? It's easier to just fix it oneself, than hope that the entrant figures it out and gets back to you. It takes less time, and it's less of a hassle to keep track of.

    It would also create an extra 1500 scripts that need to be dealt with with they arrive. Confusion and chaos would ensue.

    At least, that's why I am assuming they don't do such a thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • 12916studios
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Wow...1500 scripts like that? I'd be pretty pissed by number 38, I think. I know, of course, how to delete my name. I mean, if you know how to make the damn title page, you can know how to delete your name.

    I just forgot about how it should only be the title on the title page. (I read the rules to the competition way back in October, so that's a long time to forget specifics.)

    You sound a tad bit peeved at my question, or the simple fact that people tend to be quite stupid. I hope it's the latter of the two.

    Leave a comment:


  • gregbeal
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by 12916studios View Post
    I have a question about the PDFs sent in...

    What about the title page? How is that dealt with?
    Well, a majority of entrants are able to figure out how to delete their name and contact information prior to creating a PDF version.

    Some submit scripts with title pages and no information; others submit scripts with no title pages. Since all scripts are identified via title and number to the readers, it doesn't matter.

    For scripts that arrive with name and contact information, in most instances we simply "black out" the offending information in Acrobat Pro.

    This is getting old, though, and we may have to find another solution if 1500 scripts arrive at the deadline with names.

    Leave a comment:


  • 12916studios
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    That's what I was wondering Joe, I just didn't exactly indicate it in my post.

    Leave a comment:


  • joe78
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    I don't see why the title page causes an additional problem for pdfs.

    Hard copy or electronic, it should only have the title on it according to the rules, correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by 12916studios View Post
    I have a question about the PDFs sent in...

    What about the title page? How is that dealt with?

    This is exactly why I only send paper copies. I guess if everyone is submitting a PDF file, I will have to in the future as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Certainly going from 3 percent one year, to 75 percent the next year is a major shift.


    If there is any difference in the way screenplays are "reviewed" there should be more than enough data by which to determine that this year.



    Perhaps Nicholl should hire a "statistics" expert?



    Sampling anyone?

    Leave a comment:


  • 12916studios
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    I have a question about the PDFs sent in...

    What about the title page? How is that dealt with?

    Leave a comment:


  • gregbeal
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by joe78 View Post
    Would it be possible to get a break down between how many submissions have been submitted electronically (pdf) so far vs. how many have been/will be mailed in?
    It's running about 75-25 in favor of PDFs. Don't know if it will shift at all as we approach the deadline.

    That probably means that most PDF scripts will be read by people reading only PDFs and most paper scripts by people reading only paper.

    I don't think favoritism of one format over another will come into play.

    Last year, with a relatively few PDF scripts (less than 3%), the PDF submissions did quite well, including a winner.

    Leave a comment:


  • joe78
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Hi Greg,

    Would it be possible to get a break down between how many submissions have been submitted electronically (pdf) so far vs. how many have been/will be mailed in?

    It's perhaps a tedious concern, but with this being the first year that electronic submissions are being accepted, I'm concerned about how a hard vs. electronic copy of a screenplay will affect a judge's read.

    Personally, I find it to be a very different experience reading a screenplay on the page vs. on the screen. On the page, I tend to be more sensitive to the language itself, and on the screen, my attention is more oriented towards the pacing.

    Do you have any thoughts on this concern?

    Thanks for all of your commentary and input on this discussion thread. It has been very helpful to all of us here.

    Joe78

    Leave a comment:


  • wildswan
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Well said, Bunker!

    Leave a comment:


  • Bunker
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2009

    Originally posted by zenplato View Post
    I think it all depends on context.

    However, I think the spirit of the issue the original author mentioned is that it's a repeatable offense. Constantly telling instead of showing.

    But hey, to each their own cuz I definitely see what you're saying.
    I agree. It's a great rule to always have in the back of your mind, especially when you're just starting out. Eventually then you can learn how inject little tidbits much more effectively. I think many writers use it as either a crutch, or they just don't know any better.

    It's important to realize that almost everyone who reads the script (in competitions and in the business world) won't have time to read it. They'll be blowing through it so they can move on to the next one. A subtle action by a character that carries loads of subtext may be overlooked if the writer doesn't, essentially, give the reader a little nudge.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X