Nicholl 2020

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • zetiago
    replied
    Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post

    Here's the thing, FA4 was the latest member to post a breakdown of genre success in Nicholl - detailing how anything remotely popular is heavily outnumbered by navel-gazing melodramas.

    I don't see why you even fight this - just own the fact that Nicholl is as everyone sees it, and which the results bear out: heavily-geared towards drama - particularly heavy, introspective drama that the artsy/luvvie types applaud but which the film-loving public avoids. The Nicholl has every right to run itself how it wants so no need to be defensive.
    I'm not going to defend the Nicholl, per se. I'm glad it exists. I think it probably does reward melodrama. Not drama, melodrama.

    However, I have no idea what you mean by popular vs non. There is little correlation between popularity and quality. This holds true in basically every art form. Almost all Oscar nominees in any year make far less at the box office than blockbusters. A mass market paperback fiction author is never going to win the Man Booker Prize. It seems like you have a you against the world opinion. Like the canon and overriding critical opinions of quality need to be reconsidered because it's not 'popular' enough for you.

    Earlier in this thread you tried to draw a contrast between two loglines (listed below), obviously trying to illustrate what in your thinking is Nicholl worthy and not.

    1) When an alien prison ship crashes on earth, unleashing six murderous creatures, a loner police detective must team up with an intergalactic bounty hunter to save the world
    2) A young nun operating a sanctuary during the Nazi occupation of her homeland must confront her growing attraction to a benevolent farmhand whilst caring for her autistic sister

    I think both of those concepts are awful. If I absolutely had to watch one of those movies I would choose the second one and I actively try to avoid any movie about WWII or is a kind of misery porn.

    Finally, when you say 'the film-loving public' I'm not sure who you mean. In the US roughly 50% of people watch about 1 movie in a theater per year. And my guess is they'll choose the 'popular' titles. When you get down to the 15% who go more than once per month, what I'd call film lovers, you'll find an array of attitudes and tastes. That group is by no means comprised of people who will only go see 'popular' cinema. Before COVID I went to the cinema roughly once a week and I can count on one hand the 'blockbusters' I've seen in the last 5-10 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeNYC
    replied
    Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post

    I don't see why you even fight this - just own the fact that Nicholl is as everyone sees it, and which the results bear out: heavily-geared towards drama - particularly heavy, introspective drama that the artsy/luvvie types applaud but which the film-loving public avoids.
    The largest genre entered into the Nicholl each year is drama, so this means a large number of dramas are gonna advance and win. For example, if 40% of the entries were dramas, then one could expect 40% of the dramas to advance. You can expect to see 2 to 3 of the 5 winners be dramas.

    What I've been discussing is the supposed so called "Bad Low Concepts and Good Low Concepts." The majority of these dramas are not going to be commercially viable, but its writing will be quality. The majority of these screenplays will not get produced, but for some of these writers, the writing will get them noticed by the industry, where these writers will break in.

    The goal of the Nicholl is not to judge the commercial potential of a logline, or screenplay. It's to judge the quality of writing. It's to find great writers that are talented enough to sustain a career in the industry. It's a proven fact that a unique, high concept has the potential to be extremely commercial, but for some of these produced films the writing was just competent and you never heard from these writers again.

    And all of the other genres, other than dramas, that enter into the Nicholl, with the exception of one (comedy), do not have to get into a slugfest to advance. Their entry percentage to their advancement percentage are on target, or over in regard to performance.
    Last edited by JoeNYC; 10-15-2020, 12:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SundownInRetreat
    replied
    Originally posted by gregbeal View Post
    The above loglines and titles are drawn from the Nicholl website (which apparently various posters have never bothered to visit while pontificating about what Nicholl has been).
    C'mon, Greg. Man up rather than this passive-aggression. We all know who you're talking about so just say my name,

    Here's the thing, FA4 was the latest member to post a breakdown of genre success in Nicholl - detailing how anything remotely popular is heavily outnumbered by navel-gazing melodramas. She noted that half were dramas and the remaining genres were having to fight for a share of the other half. Your own figures back this up - assigning 40% to dramas alone and that doesn't disagree with what I said about Nicholl. 60% split amongst the 8 broad genres of horror, action, sci-fi, thriller, family, fantasy, romance and comedy? That's just 7.5% each. Even less as you said about 20% are comedies to leave 40% split amongst the other 7 genres for a 5.7% split vs 40% for drama.

    I don't see why you even fight this - just own the fact that Nicholl is as everyone sees it, and which the results bear out: heavily-geared towards drama - particularly heavy, introspective drama that the artsy/luvvie types applaud but which the film-loving public avoids. The Nicholl has every right to run itself how it wants so no need to be defensive.
    Last edited by SundownInRetreat; 10-15-2020, 11:31 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SundownInRetreat
    replied

    Originally posted by sc111 View Post
    Sundown: in another thread, I pointed out the irony of you responding to Vango about your low opinion of Nicholl winners, unaware he wrote one of the winning scripts you described as "kitchen sink" etc., etc. My take was your comment sounded like sour grapes.

    Then Will moved those comments here and since that move you've posted a few thousand words just to prove your "case" it wasn't sour grapes. Hmmmm.

    Edited to add: These comments are not "innocuous" as you claim:

    .
    Far be it from me to let yet more facts get in the way of your hatchet job but the'few thousand' words' that you claim I wrote in desperate defence was actually just 1607. And that was in response to multiple posters with 1/3 of that 1607 being a detailed,match-winning rebuttal to your asinine claim that I can't possibly know what material the Nicholl likes or how titles are a strong giveaway of material.

    The sad thing is that you don't actually have an issue with anything I said, You've been in previous Nicholl discussions and accepted similar sentiment Your only reason for your behaviour this time around is because I made my comments to Vango and so you manifested a false out of anger. And FYI, I didn't take any shots at any writers - just Nicholl - but feel free to believe what you want.

    Like I said, I'm done with responding to you. I just felt the need to call you out as you've continued to distort the truth.



    Originally posted by Vango
    It is an action thriller inspired by true events.
    I stand corrected regarding your script. Sounds good. Hope it makes it way into production.

    Leave a comment:


  • Prezzy
    replied
    I might take some heat here, but am I the only one that thinks entering any comedy script into any screenwriting contest is a monumentally stupid concept to begin with?

    Generally, if there's a drama that everyone else likes, I can at least be like, "I can see why people like this" because there are some generally agreed upon standards of what makes a drama a good drama.

    Meanwhile, Chuck Lorre is one of the most wildly successful comedy writers of our time. But if I was a contest reader, and he submitted his latest feature, I wouldn't be able to read past page five because my brains would be splattered all over page six.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeBanks
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    Is it really surprising that straight comedy is at a disadvantage in a contest run by the Academy, when there've been only a few comedies in history that've won Best Picture awards? (Annie Hall, The Apartment, It Happened One Night... am I missing something?)
    Shakespeare In Love
    Argo(ish)

    Leave a comment:


  • acquaformosa
    replied
    Originally posted by SundownInRetreat View Post


    It seems like poor form to you because you lack basic comprehension skills (hence your confusion above). Not once did I attack the writers or question the quality of their scripts. Every writer is clearly exceptional and way more talented than I am. I even congratulated Vango. All I did was justify my fair and widely-shared opinion of Nicholl when assaulted.

    That you, and those who liked your post, missed all of this and require macro-level explanation of plain English is a damning reflection of your reading comprehension and if none of you like being told so, then learn to understand what's written before commenting or liking.

    Now, I'm done with this ridiculous hoo-ha over my innocuous and legitimate opinion of Nicholl.

    That wasn't very nice. I guess we're not going to become pals and help each other navigate the shark-infested waters of the industry.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeNYC
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post
    You knew this about Nicholl long before you started your current comedy script. You decided to write a script that you say no one will read off a query, and your entire marketing plan was to... win Nicholl?

    (FWIW, Nicholl is 100% the gold standard of screenwriting contests. But even so, a tiny tiny tiny fraction of working writers got their start by winning Nicholl. There are a thousand doors. Go through another one.)
    "your entire marketing plan was to... win Nicholl?"

    Jeff, for comedic effect you're over dramatizing. I never said my entire marking plan was the Nicholl. I know the odds of this teen romantic comedy winning is not comforting. Because the Nicholl is the gold standard of contests, I can't ignore it. I've got to believe if the writing is strong enough maybe it could advance. Unlike the Nicholl, the other big competitions have a separate comedy category.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffLowell
    replied
    You knew this about Nicholl long before you started your current comedy script. You decided to write a script that you say no one will read off a query, and your entire marketing plan was to... win Nicholl?

    (FWIW, Nicholl is 100% the gold standard of screenwriting contests. But even so, a tiny tiny tiny fraction of working writers got their start by winning Nicholl. There are a thousand doors. Go through another one.)

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeNYC
    replied
    Originally posted by gregbeal View Post

    At some point during my first decade, I recognized that comedies seemed to be underperforming overall. At some point I began hitting aspects of comedy evaluation harder during each year's orientation sessions for first and (later) quarterfinal round readers.
    figment, you seeing this highlighted post?

    Years ago comedy writers spoke up about the Nicholl readers judging of fun, light comedies. Greg heard these voices and seen that comedies underperformed and made a special effort to bring this to light with his readers during orientation sessions.

    When I see something that doesn't make sense to me, I challenge it. It doesn't matter if an opinion came from a pro or non-pro. This helps me come at something deeper and stronger. From every angle, giving me a great understanding, making me a stronger writer. Making me better at articulating my thoughts, which all of this will make me stronger in a room with a producer.

    figment, my god, tell me, do your lips ever get tired from all the ass you kiss?

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeNYC
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffLowell View Post

    Is it really surprising that straight comedy is at a disadvantage in a contest run by the Academy
    Surprising? Not anymore, but it was when I was a naïve newbie.

    Leave a comment:


  • gregbeal
    replied
    I don't have access to the Nicholl database, so I can only do this from memory.

    I administered the Nicholl Fellowships from August 1989 through the end of 2017. During that time I continuously adjusted and readjusted the way the competition worked. The Nicholl Committee also made some adjustments. At some point during my first decade, I recognized that comedies seemed to be underperforming overall. Not by all that much but enough as to be noticeable. For instance, if comedies constituted about 20% of the entries, only about 16-17% of the quarterfinalists were comedies. At some point I began hitting aspects of comedy evaluation harder during each year's orientation sessions for first and (later) quarterfinal round readers. [Initially, volunteer Academy members served as judges in the quarterfinal and semifinal rounds. As we expanded the number of readers/judges per round, we switched to readers for both the first and quarterfinal rounds.] At some point we also began reading all scripts at least twice during the first round.

    By the later years of my tenure, comedies were performing about as well as dramas and all other genres in terms of reaching the quarterfinals. In at least one year comedies overperformed.

    Over the last ten years of my time with the Nicholl competition, I would guess that entries looked something like this: approximately 40% dramas, 20% comedies, 40% all other genres. In most of these years, the scripts advancing to the quarter and semifinals were reasonably close to those percentages.

    One thing that I noticed over the years is that broad comedies and comedies in general had a better chance with the Nicholl Committee if there was a comedy writer among the members. For many years, Hal Kanter carried that torch. More recently, Kiwi Smith has served on the committee.

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffLowell
    replied
    Is it really surprising that straight comedy is at a disadvantage in a contest run by the Academy, when there've been only a few comedies in history that've won Best Picture awards? (Annie Hall, The Apartment, It Happened One Night... am I missing something?)

    So people think comedy is "light." So what? Find another path.

    Leave a comment:


  • figment
    replied
    Originally posted by JoeNYC View Post

    ... At the time I presented this research, you agreed that comedies did underperformed. Your excuse for that happening was because comedy possessed an additional hurdle than the other genres: they need to be funny....

    ... Greg, are you willing to admit, according to the facts, that broad comedies are at a disadvantage in the Nicholl competition?
    Dear God, will you stop trying to pin people into some lame gotcha moment?

    Greg Beal's answer isn't going to change what you choose to write, anyway. Guess what, BROAD COMEDIES are at a disadvantage EVERYWHERE right now, because it's not the 80's or the 90's. Why would the Nicholl be any different?
    Last edited by figment; 10-14-2020, 09:59 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JoeNYC
    replied
    Greg, Prezzy was off base by saying the Nicholl was "taking money of genre writers to fund their search of mainly drama writers." I had done research of the first 13 years of the Nicholl's 68 Fellowship winners from 1989 to 2002 and all genres, with the exception of one, according to the percentage of entries to percentage of advancement, performed on target or over performed. There was no favoritism for dramas.

    The thing is, the one genre that underperformed was comedies. Straight comedies, not hybrid's like comedy/dramas.

    At the time I presented this research, you agreed that comedies did underperformed. Your excuse for that happening was because comedy possessed an additional hurdle than the other genres: they need to be funny.

    I believe even if they were funny (I mean you have the best comedy writers in the world entering, so there must be a few who aren't terrible) comedies will still underperform. I believe this because it makes common sense that a superficial, fun, escapism type of entertainment such as, "Dumb and Dumber," "Ace Ventura: Pet Detective," "Happy Gilmore," etc. is not gonna be able to fairly compete with deep, weighty, emotional genres/stories such as, " Casablanca," "The Godfather," "Seabiscuit," "It's A Wonderful Life," "The Silence of the Lambs," etc.

    They would need to be a hybrid with dramas such as, "Lost in Translation," "The Graduate," "The Apartment," etc.

    Greg, are you willing to admit, according to the facts, that broad comedies are at a disadvantage in the Nicholl competition?

    I mean, during the years of 1989 to 2002 there were 3 western winners and 3 comedy winners. Why is this relevant? Westerns made up only 1% of the entries and comedies were the second largest genre of entries after dramas.

    I haven't looked at how the comedies fared in the past years as far as obtaining a win for a Nicholl Fellowship. I hope they haven't underperformed, but if the first 13 years are any indication of what to expect, then I don't think the previous 13 years will be any different.
    Last edited by JoeNYC; 10-14-2020, 04:22 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X