Nicholl 2015...

[figment]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

I am serious about writing and even if one of my scripts fails to get the positive feedback I hoped for, I would still want to be respected for having made a sincere effort, not have my script (even jokingly) dismissed as something that could work for porn.

She wasn't jokingly dismissed, she was given a POSITIVE SCORE that helped propel her script into quarterfinal status.

May we all have such "dismissal."

Since she was writing a drunken sex comedy with an obscene title, perhaps the reader thought his/her last line was a joke, or would be seen as fun. I don't know. But that's just it -- we haven't heard from that reader. But since she/he gave it a positive score, they didn't "dismiss it," nor did they dismiss the female writer -- which, by the way, they don't know if the writer is male or female.

[AE35-Unit]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

Just fyi: She received a positive from the reader but did not advance to the semifinals.

[figment]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

Just fyi: She received a positive from the reader but did not advance to the semifinals.

Oops -- I mean QF -- Fixed it.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

Or, Nicholl could have acted in a satisfying way, more in line with a past history of excellent customer service and concern over equal consideration. We'll never know, because the bazooka option was her first choice, perhaps revealing a more public agenda.

As a quarterfinalist, she had at least three e-mails from the director. Identifying the right person to communicate with does not get any simpler than that.

You call highlighting a problematic comment on Nicholl's Facebook page "the bazooka option"? Really? Because doing that minuscule thing was likely to blow the organization's reputation up?

And what is this "public agenda" you speak of? Because I'm pretty sure most people who post on Nicholl's FB page don't think it's going to get significant, much less national, attention. That's because the audience for Nicholl's FB page is limited to screenwriters, and even more so, to screenwriters who bother to visit the social media page of a competition on a regular basis. Nothing about her post suggests she thought it would cause producers/managers/agents to come running to read her screenplay. Or Mashable to come knocking to her door.

The extent to which people are implying that she had "ulterior motives" because she did what thousands of people do every day -- publicly highlight an example of bad service from a company to hold them accountable -- is rather ridiculous at this point. Maybe you've been watching too many movies.

[Margie Kaptanoglu]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

Here's the text of the entire review:

"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."

From start to finish, the tone of the review is sarcastic and demeaning. That first sentence is sarcasm. Then we have "...quite the reveal,- "...not that that is saying a lot,- "not a helluva lot of insight,- "Got it,- "When it is drunk, which it is often, this script might believe...,- and then the final sentence.

The point is not that the script was criticized, it's the tone of the criticism. The reviewer is actively mocking the script. It's completely unprofessional, and it's very surprising to me that Nicholl's FB rep did not immediately pick up on this tone instead of trying to defend the review. To insist that the author give the title, as if that somehow justified this mocking tone, is appalling. To say that a positive score justifies the tone is also appalling.

I'm glad to see that Nicholl quickly came to their senses and apologized. It's clearly a great organization in most respects. But I do think they should be looking carefully at other reviews written by this reader before deciding whether to keep him/her on. The reader needs to be heavily schooled in tone and respect.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

The same thing happens with gender -- "Oh look, another sceenplay about a twenty-something white guy -- or girl -- or whatever."

I would consider this statement in a paid review inappropriate as well.

In this particular scenario, given the supposed nature of the screenplay, you're making many, many assumptions about the intent, motive, and tone of the reader's comments. Such a slippery slope.

I don't think the slope is slippery at all. I think for most people, it's not hard to tell that the notes were clearly over the line. A handful of people here who feel very vocally otherwise does not change that.

Again, just because the tone of the screenplay is edgy, does not mean the review of it should be. That's what you call professionalism. This is not an off-the-cuff review being given in a bar with your Hollywood buddies. This is a paid service.

[boudiccarules]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

Here's the text of the entire review:

"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."

From start to finish, the tone of the review is sarcastic and demeaning. That first sentence is sarcasm. Then we have "...quite the reveal,- "...not that that is saying a lot,- "not a helluva lot of insight,- "Got it,- "When it is drunk, which it is often, this script might believe...,- and then the final sentence.

The point is not that the script was criticized, it's the tone of the criticism. The reviewer is actively mocking the script. It's completely unprofessional, and it's very surprising to me that Nicholl's FB rep did not immediately pick up on this tone instead of trying to defend the review. To insist that the author give the title, as if that somehow justified this mocking tone, is appalling. To say that a positive score justifies the tone is also appalling.

I'm glad to see that Nicholl quickly came to their senses and apologized. It's clearly a great organization in most respects. But I do think they should be looking carefully at other reviews written by this reader before deciding whether to keep him/her on. The reader needs to be heavily schooled in tone and respect.

Yes, every reader should adhere to a standard set of adjectives, standard scoring system, standard method of determining value in a script, standard set of comments. DEFINITELY!

Then reader # 1 on my script should NOT have been so scathing on it's issues, because it really hurt my feelings.

I like reader #2's comments much better - "This script has a big heart"....It's got a wonderful message....."there's a great deal to appreciate about this script".......etc etc.

Of course, the above sounds much better, but it still didn't score "POSITIVE".

I'll take the positive score with the sarcastic comments ANY DAY, thank you.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

From start to finish, the tone of the review is sarcastic and demeaning. That first sentence is sarcasm. Then we have "...quite the reveal,- "...not that that is saying a lot,- "not a helluva lot of insight,- "Got it,- "When it is drunk, which it is often, this script might believe...,- and then the final sentence.

The point is not that the script was criticized, it's the tone of the criticism. The reviewer is actively mocking the script. It's completely unprofessional, and it's very surprising to me that Nicholl's FB rep did not immediately pick up on this tone instead of trying to defend the review. To insist that the author give the title, as if that somehow justified this mocking tone, is appalling. To say that a positive score justifies the tone is also appalling.

I'm glad to see that Nicholl quickly came to their senses and apologized. It's clearly a great organization in most respects. But I do think they should be looking carefully at other reviews written by this reader before deciding whether to keep him/her on. The reader needs to be heavily schooled in tone and respect.

This.

[carcar]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

It was the porn comment that got the slap. She never said anything about the characters being characterized as slutty. Her original FB comment was measured and mild, especially compared to some that have come since.

If the reviewer had framed the comment in a slightly different way, as in the characterizations were as thin as the ones in porn, that would have been a different and justifiable criticism. It was the little tag that they 'seem kinda hot on the page' on top of the porn comment that turned it into the creepiness. Like you'd be getting your script back with the pages stuck together.

It wasn't a funny comment, but I can see reader fatigue coming into play here. Still, the reader and the respondent on FB need to own it, which at least as far as the ultimate Nicholl response is concerned, they seem to have done.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

I'm going to make my own assumption -- based off this first line of the review: "It's great to see a group of four women friends take on the sophistication level of THE HANGOVER."

The reviewer is female, let's call her "Janice". She's 50 and this kind of script isn't her genre. She's disappointed that the women in the script are, in her opinion, stooping to the level of raunchy, gross-out comedy, and, weary after reading a few too many scenes where objects are stuck in butts (allegedly this occurs in the opening scene)

It doesn't matter if the reviewer was female or male. Doesn't change the nature of the comments. And it doesn't matter if she was "weary". That's a lame excuse (and no excuse) for the tone of the comments.

she, perhaps inappropriately -- I'll give you that, decides to write her review in a tone that might match said screenplay.

Glad to see we're in agreement.

[carcar]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

I just hope this doesn't overbalance and result in a bunch of vapid, toothless, empty praise, where every member of the class gets a gold star and a certificate for completion, and God forbid you should criticize a poorly written script.

She had a legit complaint about a single comment. It doesn't invalidate every negative comment any reader makes about every script.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

We aren't though. This whole incident isn't an incident. It's not a thing.

A high school kid telling me to **** myself on the street is inappropriate too, but I'm not going to report him to the principal. You I'm guessing are the type of person who would. The world is full of all kinds of folks.

If I asked that kid to give me a screenplay review, and paid him, and then he told me to **** myself, then yes, I would report it to the principal

[Margie Kaptanoglu]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

I just hope this doesn't overbalance and result in a bunch of vapid, toothless, empty praise, where every member of the class gets a gold star and a certificate for completion, and God forbid you should criticize a poorly written script.

She had a legit complaint about a single comment. It doesn't invalidate every negative comment any reader makes about every script.

It's possible to write a very detailed, in-depth criticism without a hint of mockery. I do it all the time.

Criticism and mockery are two different things.

[UpandComing]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

I just hope this doesn't overbalance and result in a bunch of vapid, toothless, empty praise, where every member of the class gets a gold star and a certificate for completion, and God forbid you should criticize a poorly written script.

She had a legit complaint about a single comment. It doesn't invalidate every negative comment any reader makes about every script.

Trust me, the Nicholl is too big, too smart, and too established of an organization to resort to a 180-degree change such as this. It will simply remind its readers to remain professional and move on.

[carcar]

Re: Nicholl 2015...

It is obviously is an incident, though. It is a thing. Other writers are on that page complaining about their comments, nobody's talking about that...