Screenwriting : Nicholl Fellowship - reader comments in poor taste by Eoin O'Sullivan

Yes, I agree. The script sounds awful! If you read the full review at the bottom and see the questionable comment within context it makes perfect sense and is funny despite being distasteful. This "joke" does seem to echo the script's title. Sure, the reader commenting on the script should have put it better and the Academy fully apologized -- repeatedly. However, personally, I didn't find the "porn" comment sexist, not at all. Nor is it reflective of sexism in the industry. I found the comment to be a straight-up slam based on the script itself and had nothing to do with the gender of the writer. Other comments from the reader spoke about the script's complete lack of plot and that it didn't say anything about the human condition. "When it is drunk, which is often, this script might think it compares BRIDESMAIDS, but in the sober light of day, this is much more simplistic." Frankly, I feel the writer of "The Big D" was treated quite kindly, given she was a quarter-finalist. This script probably should have never made it that far. I feel the writer crying "sexist" is rather poor taste on her part.

Yes, I agree about it not being sexist, but it was in poor taste. I'm also not aware if the gender of the reader has been disclosed, but the over riding assumption is that the reader was male. I think the Academy will take a long look at reader comments after this.

Thanks, Beth. I was reserving comment. I was wondering how sexist I was if I didn't find the remarks that sexist given it made it to the quarter rounds.

Yes, it was poor taste. The funny thing is if I was another reader I probably would have agreed with this reviewer -- based on reading the article and all the following comments. I may not have used the word "porn" in my review, but I'd probably be thinking it! LOL! Putting the context of the script aside, bad writing is bad writing. That's it!

I've been talking too much about this today but I want to point out that this writer is not only represented but this script has interest by well known producer. so, maybe its not as bad as it seems and maybe this reader is just an unprofessional snarky guy?

I didn't find it sexist, but it wasn't funny or helpful. The lack of professionalism among major competition readers is remarkable. As for the script, it could be a fun indie-comedy. Who knows? Hopefully the writer finds her way to Stage 32.

That's interesting, Danny...

Obviously, I haven't read the script. I'm just speculating. However, it doesn't sound good, or rather, it does not interest me at all.

I'm interested in taking a look and also would like to know who represents her. Similar criticisms were levied at my first feature spec.

I'm glad that Rachel Koller has representation, and that her script will probably be sold within the next week or so. It's always a win to me when a previously unsold writer not only gets representation, but has a script in play, and a sale in their future - and especially their first time out. I'm sure that concept - women behaving badly - could get leveraged to the max with the right prodco and get some good traction in theaters and elsewhere. Maybe not with the puritan types, but there certainly is a broad-based audience of teens and young adults who would love a film like that - even older adults, too. Good luck, Rachel Koller.

Danny, is this script a probable sale? Have you read it? Just curious. The points of the review that caused me to lose interest in the script (as an audience member/writer) were the lack of plot, or "no plot advancement" and that there is "not enough density to carry the piece." Basically, it sounds as if the script needs more story -- according to the reviewer and the Academy's follow up comments. The reviewer seemed to feel this script is no "Bridesmaids" or "The Hangover." It seems the subject matter of the script is NOT the issue, but rather the writing itself may be. Hence the reviewer's tasteless comparison to porn -- which typically has no story. LOL! Anyway, if you cut through the controversy here and ignore the reviewer's unprofessional comment, is this script actually any good? Or, is this all hype? :)

I haven't read it and I don't know how close it is to a sale - though today's controversy did not hurt its chances believe me. I happen to think the readers comment at the end was a bit sexist. But I'm amazed at how women are split down the middle on this.

First of all, the scripts are all read blindly. Truth is, the reader could have been in fact a women. Second, the offended writer ran to Mashable and screamed sexism. This to me is faux outrage.

Okay, thanks Danny. :) Yes, this has been interesting. Clearly the reader's comment was inappropriate and unprofessional. But sexist? I don't think so. To me the comment was aimed toward the execution and tone of the script and not about gender -- in my humble opinion. So, I'd have to agree with faux outrage, or perhaps pointing blame at others. If this script sells, the prodco would probably hire another writer to fix all the story and plot problems, right? So, maybe in the end none of this will even matter. Or, perhaps the writer should thank the reader for fueling interest in her script. LOL!

Which Academy script reader would be that stupid knowing that everything will be posted within seconds in the SocialMedia? This is a PR strategy.

Readers can be unprofessional. Just because they're gatekeepers doesn't mean they get a free pass to act like jerks. They should be held to the same standards of conduct as other professionals.

@Beth: We should figure out who reps the script and offer to do the re-writes.

Haha! That's thinking, Tony C. :) Yes, the reader made a mistake, an ill attempt at humor, perhaps was being snarky and crass -- to err is human. No contest nor reader is perfect -- even the Nicholls. Yes, Tony S., I thought the writer was being hypocritical scolding the Academy, a high caliber entity, for this raunchy comment and yet she submitted a raunchy script to this high caliber entity. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! LOL! But, if you look past the controversy it would seem the script does need a lot of work. And, yes, something feels contrived about this whole thing... Is this some sort of PR stunt or false hype or something on the part of the writer? Perhaps? Who knows? I think she made a mountain out of a molehill. Or, maybe she saw an opportunity for publicity and ran with it. ;) Anyway, moving on!

Haha! Tony S. :) Well, I'm not cynical -- really -- I have a background in advertising and PR. Let's just say with this particular situation I'm suspicious and leave it at that. ;)

As a contest veteran, incl. Nicholls Quarter-finalist, I now think they're highly overrated. Here's an eye-opener: look up the Nicholl winners (from several years ago, to be fair) and see what they've done since then on IMDb. What you'll find: most never got their winning script made. Some may have had a few gigs, but not enough to call a career. A handful became full time writers, and I figure they were the kind who succeed without contests, just doing what other pros do: toiling in mailrooms or on sets, making connections, learning what sells & how to sell it. And I wouldn't be surprised if Rachel Koller becomes more successful than any of last year's winners.

Wayne

You win Nicholls, you'll get to pitch/maybe work with Decision Makers. That's all a Contest winner gets- cut the line & a chance to start a career with a paid gig. And Show Biz life ain't for many.

Stick to books & plays if you love writing.

Dan M. Contests are just another stepping stone some people take to try and break in. Just because someone doesn't enter them doesn't mean they should go write books or plays.