Nicholl 2015...

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    AE35-Unit
    Regular

  • AE35-Unit
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by slupo View Post
    Whatever it is, if you pay $40 for it, it should be professional and useful. Otherwise, don't charge $40 for it.

    And I've seen some other "notes" and they are marginal at best.
    Are you talking about Nicholl or Blacklist?

    Leave a comment:


  • Celtic1
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    I once received studio coverage and it had a line in it about "lezzying it up" for two of the female characters. Granted i wasn't supposed to see the coverage (long story) but i was more surprised when i saw it was written by a woman. So...you just never know.

    Leave a comment:


  • opie
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by LateNightWriter View Post
    Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. The Nicholl Committee accomplishes this amazing task of processing 17,000 comments (!), and one crappy incident occurs. One. Is this a pattern of Nicholl judging? I don't see a stampede of other writers posting offensive comments like the one the writer received. So no. Could it have been dealt with better initially by the Nicholl? Probably. I'm not on Facebook so I don't weigh in there. My guess is that the Nicholl staff is currently running on fumes so they made one slip. Boo hoo.

    Like AE35-Unit said, this is possibly the best publicity that writer could have received. No doubt she's getting lots of calls for that script right now.

    Late Night Writer
    +1 -- and while there was a possible explanation made for the comment, the Academy response that I saw didn't defend it.

    Leave a comment:


  • slupo
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by AE35-Unit View Post
    It isn't 'coverage'. They're internal notes passed along with each script to the next round. And I'll bet you fifty dollars to a doughnut if she'd advanced to the semi's, she'd never had brought it up. I know I sure as hell wouldn't no matter what was said about mine.
    Whatever it is, if you pay $40 for it, it should be professional and useful. Otherwise, don't charge $40 for it.

    And I've seen some other "notes" and they are marginal at best.

    Leave a comment:

  • LateNightWriter
    Member

  • LateNightWriter
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Apparently no good deed goes unpunished. The Nicholl Committee accomplishes this amazing task of processing 17,000 comments (!), and one crappy incident occurs. One. Is this a pattern of Nicholl judging? I don't see a stampede of other writers posting offensive comments like the one the writer received. So no. Could it have been dealt with better initially by the Nicholl? Probably. I'm not on Facebook so I don't weigh in there. My guess is that the Nicholl staff is currently running on fumes so they made one slip. Boo hoo.

    Like AE35-Unit said, this is possibly the best publicity that writer could have received. No doubt she's getting lots of calls for that script right now.

    Late Night Writer

    Leave a comment:

  • AE35-Unit
    Regular

  • AE35-Unit
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    It isn't 'coverage'. They're internal notes passed along with each script to the next round. And I'll bet you fifty dollars to a doughnut if she'd advanced to the semi's, she'd never had brought it up. I know I sure as hell wouldn't no matter what was said about mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • slupo
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Rachel's notes were extremely unprofessional. I don't think any kind of coverage should have sarcasm and "jokes."

    I think that should be the bigger controversy and not that the comments were somehow sexist, which I'm not sure they could be since the readers don't know who the writers are. Unless people mean sexist to the fictional characters in the screenplay. Maybe if the screenplay was a period drama and not a raunchy sex comedy you could read more into it.

    I think Greg should answer to the quality of the coverage itself given you have to spend $40 to see it.

    Leave a comment:

  • AE35-Unit
    Regular

  • AE35-Unit
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    I doubt it. But who knows? Her phone is probably ringing off the hook with read requests.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Jay
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    I wonder if the 'buy notes' option will still be around next year...

    Leave a comment:

  • AE35-Unit
    Regular

  • AE35-Unit
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    While what was written by the reader was certainly unprofessional, running to Mashable with it was just as unprofessional on her part.

    http://mashable.com/2015/08/25/acade...52NmpnbmFwdSJ9
    AE35-Unit
    Regular
    Last edited by AE35-Unit; 08-25-2015, 08:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Scriptonian
    User

  • Scriptonian
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    A recap of the the controversy on Facebook - A post by Rachel Koller:

    "I received the below note on my Quarterfinal script and while I happily accept notes both good and bad on my work, this reader's notes, particularly the final thought (in quotes below) seemed wildly inappropriate, offensive and sexist to say the least. And certainly not constructive:

    "With some judicious alterations, it might make a decent porn picture, as the gals do seem kinda hot, at least on the page."

    Considering the current climate we're in with women writers in Hollywood, I wanted to bring this to your attention."

    Someone responded to Rachel on behalf of the Nicholl, in support of the review, which support all posters believed made the controversy worse. The Academy deleted the defending posts and offered this apology:

    To Rachel Koller and all other writers:
    We offer our heartfelt apologies for the offensive comment written by one of the Nicholl script readers. We do not in any way accept or defend this kind of comment. We believe the script note to be completely inappropriate and not in any way constructive. We also apologize for the tone and content of the initial responses to this post as they were not authorized and do not reflect our organization's values. We are taking appropriate steps to address this situation.

    Then Rachel posted the reviewer's comments in their entirety:

    Rachel Koller
    If anyone was curious about the context, the full note is here:
    "It's great to see a group of four women friends take on the sophistication level of THE HANGOVER. Seriously, the gals here drink a bunch and have a lot of fun, but there is not nearly enough density to carry the piece. There is a big secret that has spoiled the friendship between two of the gals, and it turns out that the slutty one slept with the fiancee of the one who is getting divorced. Wow, quite the reveal.
    The prose maintains a brisk pace, though often at the expense of any great detail. It is conversational in tone, and we instantly understand who these people are and what we are dealing with, not that that is saying alot. The vocabulary utilized is not particuarly stylish - rather, it can best be described as casually utilitarian.
    There is some fun banter, especially at the outset of the story. The four freinds are distinct, and they emerge as real people over the course of the screenplay. That said, there is not a helluva lot of insight into la condition humane here - people get jealous when their mates are unfaithful. Got it.
    When it is drunk, which is often, this script might believe that it compares with BRIDESMAIDS, but in the sober light of day, this is much more simplistic. The drunken conversations in the college bars go on for days, with no plot advancement taking place.
    With some judicious alterations, it might make a decent porn picture, as the gals do seem kinda hot, at least on the page."

    This FB post is typical of the many who responded to the controversy: "It's 2015. It's disgusting that these comments were not only made but defended by the Nicholl rep. Unbelievable."

    Leave a comment:


  • opie
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    My notes were mixed too but there is a good amount there that I plan to incorporate. It would be cool to see the scores along with each review, although I suppose there are specific reasons why those aren't published. Onwards.
    Last edited by opie; 08-25-2015, 03:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BKDodger
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by WaitForIt View Post
    I am incredibly shocked. I need to hear that the admin writing the "defense" was fired. And I need to hear that that reader is never touching another Nicholl entry, ever.
    Agreed. I wrote the original post before the Academy responded....and when they did, my jaw dropped. Very disrespectful.

    Leave a comment:

  • WaitForIt
    Regular

  • WaitForIt
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by BKDodger View Post
    Hi Greg - a lot writers (both women and men) in the community are really concerned about comments a quarterfinalist received on her script. See below:

    "With some judicious alterations, it might make a decent porn picture, as the gals do seem kinda hot, at least on the page."

    This type of comment is not what I would expect from a Nicholl reader. Will this person be reading for future Nicholl fellowships?

    Edited to add: May want to do some damage control, this is really blowing up on Facebook. Whomever is representing the Nicholl on social media is hopefully not speaking for the entire organization. I've only had a positive and respectful experience with the Nicholl, so this is all pretty shocking.
    I am incredibly shocked. I need to hear that the admin writing the "defense" was fired. And I need to hear that that reader is never touching another Nicholl entry, ever.

    Leave a comment:


  • opie
    replied
    Re: Nicholl 2015...

    Originally posted by AE35-Unit View Post
    My six were pretty much right in line with each other. Got dinged on one for some (clears throat) grammatical errors. Two brought up the slightly episodic execution of the script. Another brought up I needed a better throughline. But overall I was super-stoked because never before have six people collectively agreed anything I've done was good.

    I am hopeful it will be a finalist. Yet I know there are better scripts in the mix, and I won't be disappointed if it doesn't advance. It's been a thrill-ride that money can't buy. And I am humbled.
    Good luck! Although "better scripts" is subjective. Keep up the good work.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X