Message Board

I believe screenwriter and script consultant Chris Keane spoke about writning a similar story.

He had apparently started work on one years ago on about the fur trade in the U.S.

From his perspective, he seemed to give it as an example of what not to write. Here's his link if you want to get in contact with him about it.

http://www.keanewords.com/

With respect to Steve's thoughts:

"Boycott anything and everything from Chinese manufacturing...that is the main priority!!!"

I thought I might throw out some similar ideas on the subject.

While a boycott sounds great in theory, isn't it practically impossible for the average consumer to boycott everything made in China?

Virtually all of our manufacturig has been shipped overseas. What common goods can you buy today that aren't made in China -- or some other developing nation?

So even if we try to "vote with our dollars" how can we? How much choice are we given by the retailers to begin with?

And even if a manufacturing company wanted to stay in the U.S., how difficult is it going to be for them trying to compete with companies that flee?

It may end up that manufacturers are left with but one of two choices -- if you can't beat them join them, or close shop altogether.

The same goes for retailers. I don't know if you remember, but Wal-Mart was one of the few companies that still tried stocking "Made In USA" goods back in the late 80's/early '90s. With sagging profits, though, they followed suit with many other retailers once the floodgates were opened.

And as far as the "cheap" goods go, have costs really fallen that dramatically since China was let into the WTO?

Retailers to some extent know what a consumer is willing to pay for a given item. Why not just charge you the percieved value and pocket the profits?

Sure they could sell it to us cheaper. But do they have to if we're still willing to pay the same price? "Free trade" may be more mutually beneficial when countries are on relative economic parity. But how do we remain competitve against countries practicing virtual slave labor?

I guess what I'm getting at is that we have very little -- if any choice --in the goods that are offered to us.

Aside from petitioning our government for stronger tarriffs what can we do that will really work?

The government was the one that opened the floodgates. For all practical purposes, isn't that body the only ones that can close or restrict it?

With respect to "...have driven Chinese to be inhumane to their own people and animals."

Hasn't the Chinese regime been doing inhumane things to their people well before the western companies moved in?

I thought it was called Communism. It would be akin to us doing business with Russia during the Cold War.

Good points Deb:

"This has got me thinking about the nature of humans in general. We claim that we're advanced and above all other animals. We express ourselves through stories and songs. We strive to become enlightened. We seek truths to tough questions.

But we have a horribly dark side. I think we're closer to being animal than human sometimes. I would even venture to say that I think we can be worse than animals when it comes to the cruelty part of this thread."

I've heard it said that man is the only creature that can lower himself to a level below than their base nature.

For instance, we may say to a person -- quit acting like a monkey or quit horsing around. But why are we not shocked when these animals behave this way?

We don't say to the monkey, quit acting like a monkey.

Aside from "intelligence" what makes us so different?

With respect to:

-- stripping animals of their fur and skins while still alive. But the difference here is that the laborers are not sharks. They are not hunting for dinner.

Is it really any different though? Couldn't one argue that these fur laboreres are indeed "hunting" in a sense. Even if we're working at a regular ol' 9 to 5 job at the office, isn't that "hunting" of a sort? Why work, if not to get paid? And why care about being paid, if not to provide for basics such as food (hunting) and shelter.

I am not endorsing being cruel to animals, I am not. But isn't there more to it than that?

And if we are no better than animals, as some may suggest, why should we even care to begin with? Survival of the fittest right?

I entered and received feedback from them a few weeks ago. It was some of the best feedback so far.

Yeah, Michael Trent was kind, courteous, and answered all my emails right away. Awesome job!

As Gene noted, you have to request the coverage now. Apparently they changed the procedure a couple of years ago because some people don't want to see any criticism of their work.

Personally, I don't mind negative criticism because that's reality. Not everyone is going to like aspects of our work. And if we keep hearing the same issues arise, ideally we put the critiques to good use -- making the script that much better.

My only critique of the critique I received from Kairos was the overall tone. I've received negative feedback from several other contests as well. However, they were all pretty cool in how they expressed it.

Unfortunately, I found the reader I got in Kairo's rather condescending in comparison. For instance, labeling my script a mere "video game" over 6 times in half a page of coverage.

The label obviously wasn't intended as a compliment, but maybe it is as the video game industry has been eclipsing the domestic box office for years now.

From what I gathered, clearly the reader wanted it to be more of a drama genre -- as opposed to what it is, a historical action script.

One can only speculate, but maybe this is what d. santiago was hinting at when he said "They do provide short feedback - it can be pretty tough."

I at least laughed at the irony of this being a Christian contest -- trying to promote a spiritually uplifting message.

Anyway, I wouldn't judge the whole contest by one reader. My friend sent me a copy of his coverage, and while it had some negative critiques, overall the tone seemed very positive.

So part of this whole process really does depend upon who you get reading your material. Art is subjective.

And again, Michael has done a fantastic job throughout. So, despite the critique, I would definately consider entering this contest again.

I'm with Gene and Mark's advice on loglines.

Personally I find distilling a 100 page script down to a few lines a bit troublesome. And finding an exact definition of what the industry is looking for can be both confusing and hazy at best.

I came up with my own theory to keep it simple. At the very least, I believe it should include both the plotline and the major subplot of the story.

If our story has been structured these elements shouldn't be too hard to identify. And they'd naturally include such variables as who the protganist is, what are they up against etc...

If we have trouble identifying those basic elements, chances are our script needs alot more crafting. In which case, we have alot more to worry about then loglines at the moment.

And if we only have a vague idea of what the story is about, chances are so will everyone else when we try to pitch it -- which is not good.

Too often I've read loglines that might include either the plot or subplot -- or neither at all. So, it's hard to get a good idea of what the story is about.

A good way to practice might be by trying to describe recent movies we've seen. If a friend asks us what the movie was about, trying telling them by summing it up in just a few lines. See if you can hook their interest into delving more of the details.

Hi John, congratulations on securing an agent and writing assignment. Looks like your success in MovieScript is working well. Keep up the good work!

Thanks for the advice John. You're right Jason has been very helpful -- he's certainly gone above and beyond the call of duty.

Great job on advancing with ONU guys!

Couldn't have said it better Gene! Let the conspiracy continue...

One idea might be to reference or link this thread in our feedback here on Moviebytes.

For instance if we enter contests that have major shortcomings, we could note, "for future reference see Gene Langlais' dissertation on how to run an excellent screenplay contest: http://www.moviebytes.com/messageboard.cfm?action=DisplayMessages&topic=5437."

Post that enough times and maybe it will get the needed attention.

I have done a historical bio-pic myself. In the process, I have spoken to an entertainment attorney about this issue a few times.

Basically, I was told not to worry about it because all the main characters were public figures and are now deceased.

Like your case, the main concern would be potential copyright issues with authors of material used for research.

From what I gather, you can deal with this one of two ways:

a)_Try and secure the rights on your own.

Or

b) Worry about writing a great screenplay, and let the prodco/directors worry about securing any questionable rights.

This is not legal advice, but in my humble opinion there are a number of cons with option a.

First, you have to do the sleuthing on your own. You might hit a lot of dead-ends in the process — (as I have) and as it sounds like you already have. In which case, you may need to hire someone with the skill and know how to track the relevant parties down.

Second, if you do manage to get a hold of the relevant parties, have you ever proposed something like this before? How good are you going to be at pitching the idea to your prospect? Are you a good salesman or are you especially skilled at being persuasive? If not, you might be better off letting a studio handle this affair.

Besides, a studio will generally have instant credibility, the likes of which we usually lack unless we have had something produced before. And if Spielberg got rejected for his Amistad project, how much better are we going to fair as ''joe-schmoe'' the screenwriter?

Third, what happens if you pitch the prospect and get denied? You may decide, like Spielberg, to do it anyway because most of the material is historical/public domain that you can fashion something out of by itself.

But if the studios realize you've had rights rejected already, they may be more likely to shoot down your script before even reading it. Whereas, if that is still an unknown in the equation they might at least read it.

If they love it and want to pursue it, just be honest and hand over all the material you used for research. I imagine they will then get their agents and attorneys to handle all the legal details. BTW, prodcos usually will carry an Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance to protect them against lawsuits resulting from copyright issues should they arise.

Fourth, if there are multiple parties involved, are you confident you can get ALL of them to agree to grant you the rights? If not, you are right back to issue number three should anyone of them shoot down your proposal.

Fifth, even if you manage to garner the parties interest, it will most likely always come down to ''what's in it for them?'' Some might be fully satisfied with the extra recognition/fame they may receive if a film is made. Or they might be content also with seeing the sales of their books increase as a result of the film's potential success. Those might be good selling points you could use if you decide to directly pitch the proposal yourself.

However, some might want money up front. It could be as little as a dollar or into the tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Do you have that kind of money lying around? And even if you do, are you willing to shell it out for this particular project — especially if multiple parties are involved that will only magnify the costs?

If not, you could make a percentage offer with respect to any money you receive as a result of the sale of the script. However, to promise a percentage of anything else tied to the production of such a film would be foolish — as the only party you can truly speak for is yourself.

Again, not only will the studio generally have better credibility than a burgeoning screenwriter, they also will generally have access to greater sums of money than most of us do.

Those are what I consider the cons of option a. The pros of pursuing option a might be:

1. If you can get exclusive rights to the concerned parties on your own, it could prove to be a huge selling point to the studio. If you only get non-exclusive rights though, that is probably worth next to nothing.

2. Being a ''nobody'' may have advantages. The expectation of a monetary return for the parties involved may be diminished if they know you don't have loads of cash at your disposal.

So, they might be less likely to get hung up on it as an issue. Maybe this was part of the problem in Spielberg's case? Could the author of this book gotten greedy and asked for more than what was reasonable? Maybe it was a creative control issue or something else? I don't know.

But approaching them as a ''nobody'' with not much to offer up front might also be a reason for them not taking you seriously in the first place. So, either way those are the chances we take.

However, if you DO secure the rights on your own that could be another huge selling point to a studio — since they won't have to worry about securing or paying for them.

What are the foreseeable risks of option b? Mainly wasting your time and energy. However, if we are writing a ''spec.'' script to begin with, are we not already risking quite a bit of that? They're speculative!

And as Gene pointed out, who is going to sue you over a film that is un-optioned or un-produced? What would they realistically gain from it?

In an ironic sense, you might find yourself ''fortunate'' to find yourself with Spielberg's or Brown's predicament. You might be glad in a way to find yourself in Spielberg's or Dan Brown's situation.

At the end of the day, the question should be: are you really passionate about this subject matter to risk your time and effort? If not, it may be a good indicator not to go there in the first place.

That said, I notice in your original post you say based on an "event" and do not mention any specific people. If your focus is on a historical event rather than a person, have you considered writing a completely fictional version of that event?

If so, I imagine that might further mitigate any chance of litigation.

Also, if it is just the one book, the copyright may have already expired and be in the public domain — at least according to U.S. laws. From what I understand, books written before January 1st, 1976 were protected for an initial period of 28 years. Which if this was written in 1969 brings the first term to 1997. I believe the writer and/or heirs could then renew it for another period of 28 years before the first one expired. So, in theory if it wasn't renewed you're probably fine. If it was, it may be copyrighted until the year 2025.

I believe anything copyrighted after 1976 is protected for the life of the author, plus 50 years.

Anyway, I'd recommend reading Linda Seger's ''The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film.'' I just finished reading it a few weeks back, and she touches on some of these issues.

If I'm on wrong on any of these points, feel free to correct and enlighten me.

Well done Connie, keep up the good work!!!

Thanks Gene -- and for the support from everyone else! It's very humbling.

If the script does a fraction as well as yours and as so many of the other veteran screenwriters here on MB, I'd be very happy.

Here's my webpage link if you wnnt to check out what it's about:

http://www.myspace.com/breuder_brother

And way to go on A Feeding Frenzy!

Congratulations Connie, and I see you made it through the first round at Blazing Quill. Way to go!

Hey Connie, I contacted Blazing Quill about the names. They were cool and got back straight away. They said they would include the names of the screenwriters on the next round.

I was checking out this website: http://www.awardwinningscreenwriters.com

Anyone know anything about it -- pros/cons? Is it worth signing up?

Thanks!

Thanks again Gene and Jean. And way to go on your two scripts in Storypros. I hope they keep progressing. And good job once again Connie!

Hey Gene and Paul, just noted you guys made it into the Semi's in ASA. Way to go again!

Jeam, great job with the option on Slade!!!

Speaking of how to run a contest -- or not to. Has anyone entered the Griffon International Film Festival (GRIFF)?

It's been several weeks since it apparently ended, and I haven't seen the results posted anywhere. I'm wondering if anyone else can shed some light.

Which brings to mind a few ammendments, Gene might want to consider to his dissertation.

Under "Handling of Results" I would consider adding:

a. Notify all entrants whether they placed or not. At the very least let us know who did place. Those who didn't make the cut can then at least deduce where they ultimately stand.

b. Update the website with the results immediately after the contest/film festival is over. Waiting weeks or months is unprofessional.

I would also add another category:

11. Register with Moviebytes!!! While most contests are good at listing on both Withoutabox and Moviebytes -- some don't.

Not registering with Moviebytes is bad for at least two reasons.

1. Fewer screenwriters will be aware of all the upcoming contests.

2. There is no feedback feature for contests on Withoutabox. I find most of the comments and ratings posted here on Moviebytes to be helpful. It can sometimes make the difference between entering a contest and not.

While I like Withoutabox, contests listed SOLELY on Withoutabox are "more like a box of chocolates..." -- so I am henceforth leery of them.

I agree.

Consider yourself lucky that you have never heard of GRIFF up until now. They were only listed on W.A.B.

To be fair, I have encountered some good ones that were only listed on W.A.B., but you have to go with your gut instinct because there is no feedback on them.

Anyway, they violated about 3/4 of the points Gene outlined. There was no correspondence whatsoever. So, I'd save your money and steer clear of them -- at least for those who consider even a modicum level of customer service important.

I could forgive WOTS if they merely sent Connie her money back and left it at that. However, there was absolutely no need to make that discriminatory declaration. They do not have total discretion.

Gene is absolutely right, we have laws that prohibit this kind of behaviour — and for good reason. I was planning to enter their contest as well. But unless WOTS is able to offer a reasonable explanation, I'll join the boycott.

Bobbette is right that we would need a bit more evidence than a gut feel to make accusations about whether our scripts are indeed read or not. But Jean also has a wise point. Most of these issues could be cleared up if the contests in question extended just a little understanding to Connie in the first place.

As far the BBB goes, Connie has every right to contact them. She seems to feel the customer service has been lousy. Part of what the BBB does is try and resolve disputes between customers and businesses. Connie obviously tried on her own and was not being taken seriously.

And just because one lodges a complaint, doesn't mean the BBB are necessarily going to take the customer's side. Let them be the ones to decide.

In the end, she has done nothing wrong. In fact if this particular contest doesn't clear things up, she should be going to more than just the BBB.

It sounds like Connie has gone above and beyond what is required of her. She has taken the time to explain her situation (which is not required of her). Not only is she exercising a form of diligence for them, but it also illustrates a humility of character. Imagine if you found yourself in her shoes and had to do that with every contest you entered?

Connie, you shouldn't have to, but in the future you might want to stick to contests that offer feedback.

OR if the contests you're considering don't offer feedback, I'd ask the director if they can make an exception. I've entered three that don't ordinarily provide feedback or judges scores, and all three of them were kind enough to send me through their notes. So it doesn't hurt to ask on the front end.

I would maybe even use this incident as an example of why you are making this request to begin with.

If the contests are unwilling to make a compromise, it could be a reflection of their character -- and an indicator of who how they run things. In which case, it might be a good idea to avoid them in the first place.

Your screenplays have obviously done very well in a myriad of contests already. I'm sure they will continue to do so.

Obviously you are very bright. So don't call yourself ''stupid.'' Don't let other people make you feel that way because they might be uncaring, ignorant, or both.

Thanks again Gene! It's also great to see two of Connie's scripts advance. And Jean seems to be Jazzin' it up. Way to go!

Thanks for those kind words Connie. You're an inspiration in many ways!

Way to go John!

I couldn't have said it better Gene. And since my script just so happens to be about our veterans, I find it all the more reason for me to give pause. It's humbling to remember the ultimate sacrifices they made, so you and I can go about our day to day lives in relative peace.

Jean, thanks so much for the well wishes.

I must admit, I was totally surprised -- first to make it and second, not to see your name there.

I told my wife my bet was actually on your's to win it.

Overall, your record so far speaks for itself. So, keep up the great work!

And good to see Connie has advanced. Way to go Connie!

I haven't entered AFF previously, but I can vouch that Alex is an excellent communicator.

He's taken the time to post some in depth responses here on MovieBytes. And from my experience he responds to emails quickly and thoroughly.

You may find with a number of contests, that you are lucky if they even respond to your email. Or if they do, sometimes they pick and chose which questions they want to answer!

Others don't even bother to notify contestants of the results -- some go so far as to neglect posting the results on their website well after it is finished.

I've found those who communicate well on the front end give a good indicator of how they run their show altogether.

You certainly can't go wrong with Barb. She runs an excellent show. I've dealt with all three of those as well. I'd say they're all class acts.

And like Jean says, it's probably worth triangulating your coverage. If all three of them are detecting the same issues, than it is definitely something worth taking a closer look at before the 'spit and polish.'

I noticed Gene didn't single any one out here. Does someone have a guilty conscious?

Gene, it doesn't bother me if the word police feel compelled to correct typos.

What bothers me is when people seem to derive pleasure out of belittling others. How is behaving that way mature?

Gene you're right, I'm sure there'd be no issues with Michele & Co. if they wouldn't go around spewing verbal diarrhea on those who obviously have a difficult time defending themselves.

From the schoolyard I grew up on, you pick on those your own size. So, if they want to trade punches I say bring it on. I for one am willing to spar all day if that's what they want.

As far as the verbal diarrhea goes, the other problem is it spreads. And an outbreak quickly stinks up the whole thread as a number of people have noted.

Fortunately there is a simple cure. If you have nothing good to say, such your yapper!

The other thing is if Ben is ''craving attention'' (as some have asserted) why the hell are you "feeding" him?

If you are not mature enough to handle (not man-handle) artists who may be quirky, posers, wannabes, etc.. what the hell are you doing in this business?

If you consider yourself so normal and "mature," what are you worried about them for? Wouldn't that make you actually stand out from the crowd? Don't you think the decision makers in this business deal with odd people every day?

To her credit Michele can be witty and funny at times — just not when it's at some one else's expense. Try using it with folks you know and can trade "friendly" jibes with. Do that and I'm sure no one will be thumping you back.

Also, don't hold people to standards that you are not willing to live up to yourself -- it's called hypocrisy.

If you want common courtesy -- extend it.

If you expect other people to be humble, then start with yourself and show an ounce of humility.

If you want other people to behave on a mature basis with you, stop the kindergarten antics and grow up.

Ben I'm neither a ''friend'' nor ''enemy.'' But I say stick around and keep "annoying" them until they learn to stop picking on you.

If they don't like what you have to say they are free to ignore you or change the channel. You're not hurting or insulting anyone else here.

I have to say I'm impressed by your latest post Michelle. It came across as sincere and seems to be done in good ''conscious'' ;).

At the end of the day, we don't know Ben's full story. Just as until now, I haven't known yours.

Sure he could help his cause by being a bit more forthright. But aside from the concern that he may be a ''poser,'' why should we care? In such a case, who would he really be harming — aside from maybe himself?

The problem is we've all been making assumptions and accusations. Even in a court of law, a bit of evidence (or a lack thereof) does not necessarily equate to proof.

As Robert pointed out, he could well be someone just posting all sorts of zany and outrageous things to mess with people's minds. If he is, why dignify his posts?

Or maybe he just likes getting a reaction? If he is, why give him the satisfaction? Wouldn't the best thing be to ignore him? Or maybe as he indicated in his own words, he's ''addicted'' to building ''friends'' and ''enemies.'' If he is, why fuel the addiction by becoming one or the other?

Or maybe he's just a kind guy whose worst crime is that he has trouble interacting with other people. If so, why should we scold him for that?

I don't know if it's any one of these scenarios. It could be something completely different. What I do know is we're acting as though we have the answers, when it may well be the questions we have wrong.

That's why until I can relate to him on some honest level; I'll have to ignore his posts. I don't have anything against him, but I also don't know where he is coming from. So, why waste the time?

But if he is just a ''poser'' or a ''wannabe'' as many of us seem to be concluding. Again who is that hurting aside from himself?

Is he really besmirching the good name of all screenwriters? Even if on some level he was able to, like Thomas has suggested, defend and fend for yourself. Don't worry about what Ben is doing. We should be worried about what we are doing.

And should we really believe the decision makers in this industry might read a post on MovieBytes and go ''Oh no a 'poser' run for the hills. We're never going to consider a spec script again!''

The reality is people in this business are going to deal with people from all walks of life — "posers" and "wannabes" included.

If nothing else, if we are able to relate to others better than someone who is a bit quirky, dishonest, or any of the other charges that are being made that contrast might be more of a benefit to you specifically than the claimed collective curse to all screenwriters.

Sadly, I'm sure there a lot of talented writers who get overlooked precisely because they have trouble interacting socially. Objectively, that shouldn't be held against them — but in reality I'd venture to say that it often does.

Part of this job is sales, and sales usually requires a degree of social skill.

The paradox is it's not uncommon for a writer to be introverted or the type that lives in a delusional, fantasyland. Those kinds of traits might actually be of benefit for good writing, but work against that individual when it comes to closing the deal.

I for one am going to try and empathize with those who seem to be like that because by natuew the mountain they have to climb might already be steeper.

And at the end of the day, aren't ALL of us posers or wannabes until we actually sell or option our script?

We might not want to see ourselves in that light, but again that's the reality. That doesn't mean what we've written is not good or even great. But until we seal a deal, we're just ''wanting-to-be'' like everyone else here.

So no matter what their case, I try to lay off the ''wanting-to-be'' screenwriters because I am one myself.

And if we're fortunate enough to ever get one of our stories made, hopefully we remember our roots and keep showing courtesy to others who are in the process of writing, dreaming, or even deluding something up.

Anyway, it would have taken a lot of humility to write your last post. You're pretty cool in my book.

And Robert Congratulations on StoryPros too! I'm still relatively new here myself and getting used to all the different names, who's who etc...

Keep up the good work Connie!!!

I agree with John and Gene. I'd be highly suspect of these contests and the clauses they seem to bury on their websites and then bury it some more in the fine print.

And while for some folks 7% might not be too bad if they directly nailed the sale for you, indirect efforts seem way too vague and unjust.

Also what happens if a screenwriter has entered both of these contests and makes a future sale?

Do they then get 14%? Or do they have to fight each other over the 7%?

Since the wording is somewhat vague, I imagine if it came down to it you could always try to fight it in court. Although the question then would be, is it worth hiring a high-priced entertainment attorney?

If you are fully aware of these clauses upfront, I don't think the risk is worth the "reward."

There are alot of other good contests out there that don't try and pull the wool over our eyes. I'd stick with them instead.

And I wouldn't be too happy if one of those good contests actually made a valuable connection that led to a sale, but a contest like one of these two butted in and tried to reap the financial credit for it. It wouldn't seem just.

I hear what you're saying.

But, proving that we signed and agreed to give away 7% wouldn't be nearly as monumental a task to prove ;).

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I'm inclined to believe this kind of wording is something that could be interpreted differently even in the court system.

I think you could make a case against it. But in the end it probably depends on how good your lawyer is and what the judge is like.

Why risk going there in the first place?

If you for some reason folks entered and didn't realize, I empathize for them. And if it comes down to it, they should fight it if they can afford to.

The fact of the matter is they practically buried these clauses on their websites.

And even if the "indirect" clause is debatable, the "direct" one would not be. Again the question is whether most contest entrants actually read and realized what they were signing?

My hunch is a lot of entrants were duped unbeknownst to them. As even John pointed out, it wasn't until after he entered and looked at it a bit closer that he found out.

Anyway, I've been in touch with an entertainment attorney I know. It will be interesting to see what his opinion is.

I got a response back from that entertainment attorney, and it sounds like Gene and John are right for cautioning people on these two contest. Here's what he had to say:

"Yes, they certainly could argue that (and I would, if I were one of their lawyers).

Whether such a claim would be taken credibly is another matter though.

"Direct or indirect" under the contract is not defined, so hard to say on this one.

I would certainly be wary of that provision.

But ultimately if the sale does not amount to much, they probably wouldn't pursue it. Plus, this assumes they would even find out about the sale in the first place."

So the good news is that if you were caught in this net unwittingly, it sounds like you could theoretically challenge any claim because they did not define 'direct' or 'indirect'

The bad news is if they do pursue it, you could still end up with a lawsuit on your hands and have to worry about court costs if you don't give them the 7%.

And while they might not find out about any future sale, if you manage to garner a large sum, I wouldn't feel too confident about that.

My guess is expect it to attract them like sharks to blood in the water. Which is probably why they exempt small deals such as those under the $3,000 - $10,000 range. They're going to want a cut of something substantial and fighting something under that amount in court is probably not worth the cost.

So, I'd follow his advice and be very wary of these contests.

I agree Acton it seems like contests should list more than 3-5 finalists -- especially if there are hundreds of entries or more.

For all you know you could have been number 6 out of hundreds or thousands of entries.

I've gotten savvy to this. So, now I'm in the habit of emailing the contests before entering. It's a good way to test how well they communicate and run their show.

I usually ask a number of questions now. One of which is whether they actually have a quarter and/or semi- finals.

I've noticed a number of them don't(particularly ones listed solely on Withoutabox).

The best bet is like Gene said, ask the director if they'll consider having them in the future. The worst they can say is "no."

If not I'd think twice about entering.

I'm sure you're right Acton. The competition out there is very good.

Anyway, I started compiling a list of contests that do not seem to offer a quarter or semi-finals. I got this info. from either emailing them directly or checking out their websites (and looking at their past winners).

Virtually all of these will be listed on Withoutabox only. If you do a search here on MovieBytes, you'll notice some of them were actually listed here in the past. You might also notice some of the very poor reviews they got from fellow screenwriters. So, I wonder if that's why they ignore MovieBytes now and kind of hide on WAB?

Anyway, here's what I've compiled so far:

Woods Hole Film Festival — Top 3

Hoboken International Film Festival — Top 5

Twin Rivers Media Festival — Top 5 Montclair International Film Festival — Top 10

Griffon International Film Festival — not sure, no results posted

Upcoming Contests:

Honolulu International Film Festival — Top 3

Visionfest - Top 3

Cinequest Screenwriting Competition — Top 10

Feel free to update it if you discover there are any that I've missed.

Thanks for the heads up Heather it was another good interview!

Wow, thanks for all the congratulations! It means alot coming from such great writers. That's the real honor.

Thanks John and Elaine! I like the creative visual John :).

Congratulations Heather and Toby! That sounds like great news.

Thanks Heather and Orlanda. I'll keep you posted if anything new develops.

Cool, I'll keep an eye out for them!

Hey Acton (and anyone else who wants to know) here's what I've found out about some upcoming contests that do NOT seem to have a quarter-, or semi-finals:

Omaha Film Festival - 12-15 Finalists

Prince Edward Island - 3 to 5 Finalists

Las Vegas IFF - 10 Finalists, 3 winners

Rhode Island IFF - 5 to 7 Finalists (1 of which is in the GLBT category; 1 other is for local content)

Downbeach Film Fest. - No quarter or semis, but they did not indicate how many finalists there would be.

Dixie Film Fest. - Top 5 Finalists

I hope that helps.

You have some good points Paula. For smaller comps. it might not make as much sense to hold a semi- or quarter-finals for the reasons you stated.

However, I think Acton's complaint was valid in this case because they claimed to receive close to 300 entrants. So, we're talking about the top 1%!

What would it really cost them to recognize say the top 5-10%?

From an industry perspective, would it really have hurt their reputation to list the top 15 - 30 scripts? For some folks taking the chance to end up in the top 1% might sound like fair enough odds. If it does, by all means roll the dice.

But other screenwriters might want to be a bit more discerning. As Acton noted, it can get expensive. As a result, not all of them will be worth their time and money -- especially with there being so many to chose from.

It sounds like you're assuming that the other 297 scripts were not very good -- because only good writers enter in the major comps.

Whereas, it sounds like Acton is assuming that out of the other 297 scripts some were probably decent enough that they'd be worth recognizing.

Like you say, who knows?

But I think the probability is that Acton's assumption it the more likely one. There probably would have been a mix of both.

Check out some of the resumes of the good writers here on MovieBytes. A lot of them enter the smaller comps. as well.

So, I doubt that good writers only enter Nichols, Austin etc& And it seems unlikely that just because it's a comp. is smaller, all the scripts would be subpar.

But that's just my assumption ;).

Regardless, I feel the lesson to be learned is that it's best to ask these (and other) kinds of questions on the front end -- if the matter is important to you. That way there are no surprises -- especially for those who are on a limited budget.

If the matter is not important (and money is no issue) the info. posted here might be irrelevant in their decision making process. In which case, they're free to ignore it.

Either way, the best thing is to make an informed decision, whatever it may be.

Great job Jantet -- especially for only your second time at bat!

Competitions face a lot of competition in the circuit. And issues like these might well be factors that limit their growth and reputation among screenwriters.

If they don't seem to care, like you say, it's their contest at the end of the day. So, I agree they are free to run it as they see fit.

However, the point is some screenwriters might think twice about some of these comps. if they knew how they were set up in the first place. Many of them don't advertise the fact that they will only select 3 winners.

So, if the screenwriter doesn't ask up front, the likelihood is they won't find out until the results are released. When only the top 3 are mentioned it might come as a surprise for some entrants.

One of the great things about MovieBytes, is that we have the benefit of seeing how our peers rated contests in the past. We can also check out their comments to see if there are common thread complaints. So we have the opportunity to make a relatively informed decision before entering.

We don't really have that luxury with contests that are not or no longer listed/advertised here on MovieBytes.

So, I appreciate Acton alerting other screenwriters to his experience.

How is this any different than voicing his experience or opinion on a contest report card? When making our own decision, we're free to take heed of it or ignore it. It's not hurting anyone here, but it may be of help to some.

The other thing is, who says these contests have to lock themselves into a quarter- or semi-finals?

If we apply that logic, why even lock into a Top 3? Especially if all the scripts are rubbish, I would imagine having a terrible winner would look even more embarrassing?

But that's still assuming that industry embarrassment is their main motivation — which I doubt it is. They could be locking themselves into a small number for a whole myriad of reasons other than that.

A good alternative might be to take a flexible approach -- which could be contingent on the number and quality of entrants. Something like a top 5-10% of entrants might be a good rule of thumb.

I suspect a number of good contests already do this. If you look at many of the results, you'll often see very odd numbers of quarter-, semi-, or finalists.

Great going on your win Flo! I hope there's more to come for you.

Great going John, I hope your script keeps advancing!

Good job Acton! Keep up the good work.

Great job Connie!

The Shawshank was an awesome movie that broke the "rules" on voice over and a few other things. The thing I'd maybe keep in mind about that example is, it was based on a work by an established writer (Stephen King) and it was adapted by an established screenwriter (Frank Darabont).

Chances are if you or I wrote the same story, it would be prejudiced by a reader because we have too many voice-overs.

It might be akin to having a script more than 115-120 pages. There are plenty of great movies that run over 2 hours. However, for us it might raise red flags to readers who flip to the last page in order to check the page count.

I'm not saying it's right, but those are some of the chances we take.

With consultants, it might be a bit difficult to gauge if it's a 50/50 split.

I'm with Jean and Eric, I try and use multiple consultants - 3 or more. I also enter contests that offer feedback or at least a judge's score. The coverage might be broader, but it's a cheaper way to get a broad base of opinions.

If things aren't broken, I don't fix them. So, what I really look for in the reviews are the common thread issues or complaints. If I start hearing the same things over and over again, chances are an actual audience might have the same kind of reaction. So, it depends whether that's the reaction you want to elicit.

If it's an issue I hear only once or twice, I might try and address it if it resonates with me. But if it doesn't, I'll just make a note of it -- in case it crops up more or it comes in handy down the track.

One problem I find with some advice is, if you take on board their advice you might fix this one particular issue but create a ripple effect which generates about a dozen more problems in the process.

If that's the case, it might be best to address it with the consultant to see if you can find a viable solution that addresses ALL the potential problems. Sometimes it's easier to point out problems then come up with solutions that actually work.

But at the end of the day, it's your story. None of us will ever make everyone happy. Like Paula noted, just look at the varying criticism produced movies get. I'd simply aim for broad appeal at best.

And if they''re trying to get you to make a story that has already been done, you might run into the "rule" about clichés.

Hi Connie,

Sorry to hear about your experience with BlueCat.

I entered early on, and they sent me my feedback fairly quickly. But with that high a volume of entries it may take some time to sort through.

In some cases it might take a bit longer as Jean noted. If you don't hear anything back from them after the contest is over then I'd enquire further.

Gordy, I'm glad to see you came on the boards to address the situation. You gave a fair and empathetic explanation. It's a stark contrast to similar situations that have unfolded with other contests. I hope in the future other directors can follow your good example.

Connie, I hope you stick around and do not get discouraged. I understand you must suffer a great deal as it is. And the emotional rollercoaster with contests might only amplify matters. Try and keep in mind all your successes and keep trucking along. Consider this just a bump along the road to success :).

Way to go again Jean! Awesome job!!! And thanks for the mention John and Jean.

Thanks for sharing your story with us Dorothy.

The best most of us can do is to try and show a little empathy. Unless we live in the actual situation, it must be very difficult to relate to. While it sounds like you can truly sympathize.

It's easy for so many of us to take our faculties for granted. I've worked with the elderly and infirmed, and I always felt it made me appreciate much better the freedoms and abilities I have -- because it could all be taken away in an instant.

To me, you, Connie, and all those who fight through these kinds of traumas are real heroes and inspirations.

I went with #4 too. Here's my take on it:

A rookie FBI agent is forced to probe the mind of a psychopathic prisoner in order to catch a serial killer holding a Senator's daughter captive.

Thanks Heather and Orlanda!

Thanks Randy. I have to agree, Regarding Henry was a great film too!

I don't think #4 came across as a dark comedy at all.

I'm trying to judge it on the basis that I don't know it is 'Silence of the Lambs.'

If this was the first time I was hearing a pitch for this story (which would be the case if we're pitching a logline), having both a serial killer and a psychopathic psychiatrist might be a bit confusing. I felt it came across almost as if they are the same character.

So, #4 seemed more linear and clearer that these were in fact two distinct characters.

If we already know what the story is, as most of us do, then #3 would probably encompass the story better.

As far as the Senator's daughter goes, I see what you're saying -- ideally the life of an accountant's daughter should be of equal value and no more importance.

But in reality, that's probably not how a case in going to be handled. Unfortunately, more priority would be given to a Senator's daughter. Granted, it's not the most important aspect, but it ups the stakes if a rookie is handling such a high profile case.

I just checked that out Ben. I didn't recognize any of the names either. Good pick!

And if going up against pros isn't hard enough, don't they usually get thousands of entries?

It looks like they named only a handful of people, so I imagine they'd probably be like the top 1% or so of all entrants.

When you combine the two factors, not the greatest odds I would think.

Thanks Robert!

Mary, some people will post their scripts or excerpts on WinningScripts -- just click on the link in the top right hand of the screen. I think that WriteSafe also allows people to post their material. I don't know much about it though. I hope that helps.

BTW, welcome on board!

That's interesting that they told you they'd be listing semi-finalists Martin. Have you noticed the announcement here and then the one on their webpage?

On MovieBytes the contestants are listed as Semi-finalists. However, on the actual Script PIMP webpage it lists the same exact contestants as finalists.

I don't know if this is what they meant when they told you they'd be listing semi-finalists -- or if it was just a typo and the real semi-finalists will be announced later on.

It might be worth checking this out with them.

Thanks Dorothy, but I have to say hats off to Gene and Paul with their double victory there. Great going guys!!!

I hear what you're saying Robert, but if the rules really are being broken you have a legitimate gripe -- or grape ;).

Good job again Jean with the WRITTEN WORD AWARD!!!

Powerful Proud there of Gene and Paul -- way to go with both placements!

Great job too Irin!

I'm just going by why what Martin posted with respect to the rules:

"Individuals who have received sole or shared producer credit as to ANY FILM, series, or episode that has been produced FOR PRESENTATION IN THEATERS or by means of television, home video, or any similar medium;..."

There doesn't seem to be any exception or disclaimer noted for producers, directors, or writers who have made their own work. Nor is there any exception or disclaimer for whether the work generated a profit or not.

It sounds to me that the key points are whether a finished product has been presented to the public in a theatre, TV, video etc...

So, if you've produced something that's never been shown publicly you might be fine. But if it's being presented publicly then it sounds like it would be up for disqualification based on their definition.

However, if these entrants performed functions other than directing, producing, or writing they might be fine too because those are the only roles that seem to be specified in the rules.

Sounds like the exact opposite of Nantucket Acton ;).

Sorry, but I didn't single out shorts since it looks like some of these entrants have done more than just shorts.

Your interpretation could be wrong -- as could mine. Film festivals usually screen shorts in a theatre. And since there is no disclaimer made for shorts, it is sufficiently vague.

So, if I were entering a contest like this though, I'd err on the side of caution and ask the contest director how the rules apply to my situation.

Ultimately, it's up for them to decide and enforce.

Congratulations there Michael!

Fantastic job Jean and Irin! I just saw I got an email about the Quarters as well. I hope you all advance.

Good job Ron -- glad to see your name there too!

Gene thanks again for addressing this issue with them and making us aware of it. And thanks to Craig James for listening to our concerns and taking them seriously.

Any idea when they will formally change this? Is it in effect for this year's or next?

Good post Patrick. Australia also offers development funding -- if you have a low budget script that is set downunder.

Both the federal and individual states generally offer grants for writers to development stories.

I think you might have to be a resident though, but it might be worth looking into if anyone is setting a film here.

But as you note, many countries operate differently than the United States. So, if setting a film in a foreign country it might be worth looking into what kind of government support (if any) that you can garner from them.

Robert I think you guys are wearing out my T-H-A-N-K-Y-O- and U Keys! :)

I really appreciate all the support and well wishes from all of you. Thanks again!

I have to second or "third" what Robert and John's observations. They are spot on.

Jean you've always been a big help with your support, advice, and insight. You always seem to have a positive take on things.

Keep up the good work. It's always good to hear what you have to say.

Thanks Dorothy, Orlanda, and Gene!!!

Good point and good advice Patrick about writing at least a treatment before you pitch any ideas close to your heart.

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the sentiments!

Michael, it took me about 2-3 years now. Much of that time was devoted to researching the material. I read literally thousands of newspaper articles, online articles, and lots of books. It was ongoing, even as I actually wrote the script.

That's good to hear Gene! I could no longer find that clause on their website under the contest rules.

However, if you have Craig's ear, you may want to ask him about updating the rules on Withoutabox so they are in harmony with one another.

Thanks again guys! Good job again Gene and Paul, 'powerful proud' there.

John's right, I'd definitely give Movie Script a try. The notes are worth it.

...And I noticed Mark Familton's 'Descent' made it. Great job Mark!

Great job Michael on making the Script Savvy finals. Keep up the good work!

Congratulations Jean with the AOF award and advancing to the semi-finals in PAGE!

Good job again Jean!

An amazing story of courage and fighting back against the odds. It would be great to see a script done one day based on on your trials and triumphs.

It would be good to hear from you again if you are still reading the boards! God Bless you Connie.

Good job guys, I hope you make it through to the finals.

Thanks again guys! Great job Michael, it seems like The Knuckleballer is hitting home runs left and right.

Great nomination Jean! Keep up the good work.

Janet, I don't know if you subscribe to InkTip or not, but I noticed this ad on the latest bulletin. Just in case you don't get it, I thought I'd pass it along since it seems like you love musicals:

"Nuconcepts Productions — Family Musical We are looking for a completed feature-length teen pop music-driven screenplay that is family friendly and centered around a singer or band (i.e. something in the vein of a Disney musical). The script must ultra-low budget capable, so please only submit if your story takes place in 3 or less locations. Please note that submissions containing sex, profanity, violence, holidays, magic or religion will not be accepted. We are seeking PG-rated scripts only. The film will be shot this fall and as this is an independent ultra-low budget project, we are looking for a writer who is willing to work on deferred pay.

Non-WGA writers only should submit.

For further reference, feel free to look up producers Claude Reid and Christopher Free on the IMDb.

To submit to this lead, please go to:http://www.inktippro.com/leads/

Enter your email address.

Copy/Paste this code: hwnas5jwmk

NOTE: Please only submit your work if it fits what the lead is looking for exactly. If you aren't sure if your script fits, please ask InkTip first."

Way to go Flo! Great job. Keep up the good work.

I don't think there is any issue with the premise of Jean's script or her logline.

The logline states that LAPD's first black homicide detective is involved in the case.

Why is it inconceivable that a black cop would be interested in finding the murderer of a black man -- especially if it happens to be his brother?

I'm sorry Janet, but what exactly are you saying? Would a black police officer chase after a white woman who was the murder suspect of his twin brother or wouldn't he? First you said:

"I understand that the murder victims twin brother is a cop but come on...Also, I dont know too many black men in the 1940's that would openly chase a white woman. I mean it just was not done. Even as a police officer."

Then you said:

"THAT is NOT inconcievable. That's not what I said. Of course his brother would be a part of the investigation."

I realize that you are only saying that in general racism existed back then, as well as now.

The trouble is that this generalization is being treated as an absolute. Not every single person (or cop for that matter) has to fit into a mold — even if the mold is a bad one.

Personally I find a police officer going against the trend in such an atmosphere would stand out in high relief. And the situation and obstacles would be even more dramatic. The irony is you are admittedly pre-judging Jean's script without having read it.

Great job again Jean!

Congratulations Paula and Irin!!! Good job making it through.

Way to go Mike, the Knuckleballer is tearing it up!

Congrats with flat pennies Robert!

Joseph is right. Credit cards with banks might work a bit better.

I think they will usually allow about 90 days to make a claim too - so the extra time might help.

I just had a script consultant do this very same thing with me, and it resulted in him getting a charge back.

Don't let anyone rob you for services they never provided.

Withoutabox is a pretty good service overall.

Although when updating drafts, you might want to watch out for potential issues with the title page.

Sometimes you get a warning message when you update and overwrite your old draft - and for some strange reason, sometimes you don't.

I believe the message is to the effect that previous entries may be affected by overwriting the existing draft.

The potential problem occurs when two or more of these contests you enter have conflicting requirements for the title page.

Some contests are so specific about the information they want on the title page, they claim they will automatically disqualify your entry if you get it wrong.

Among the many variations, some contests want NO information except the title, others want ALL your contact details on the title page.

I've addressed this issue with WAB several times, but I never received a satisfactory response from them.

Great job Michael! I like the photos you put up on the slideshow.

Thanks for being the bearer of good news guys! I didn't even know 'til I saw this thread :)

Congrats guys - powerful proud there!

Congrats Jean and Irin! Great job.

Congrats Jean and Irin! Great job.

Congrats to Jean, Gene, Michael Murphy, and anyone else from MB who made the Quarter- and Honorable Mentions!

Good job Jean, keep rollin' on!

Great going Robert!

Well Robert already said it, so way to go with ONU!

Great job Jean, Gene, Ron, Irin, and any other MovieByters that made the cut!

Great job Anita with your success at Austin!

BTW, Robert congrats on making the Semi-Finals to WriteMovies!

Wow Robert, don't know what to say. I'm really sorry to hear that. How'd that happen? I noticed someone named Robin Warder listed there. Was it a mix up with the name or something?

Well, on a brighter note, congrats on making it to semi's Patrick. Good job!

Yes, it was ironic. Apparently there was some reservation about letting him test fly America's first operational jet, the P-80.

There had already been a high accident rate with it, including one that took the life of Lockheed's chief test pilot, Milo Burcham.

Congrats to everyone who made it to the finals!

Hi Thomas,

I'd definitely give Barb Doyan a copy to review.

Give the guys at StoryPros a whirl too. They've given some of the most in depth notes I've seen.

Congrats Ron, Gene, Irin, and anyone from MB who made it!

Congrats Gene and thanks Jean ;)!

Yup, great website! Keep up the good work.

Congrats Jean - as well as Barb, Peter, and Eric for your continued success.

It'd be great to see if Suzanne can get your script into the right hands!

Thanks guys, and congrats to Patrick and Irin!

Congratulations to all those who made it through!

Good job Gene and Paul!

Thanks everyone!!! I actually didn't find out 'til Jean and Mike alerted me to it. And way to go with the results from All Access Mike!

Great job Ron, congratulations!

Great job making it into the top Irin!

Jean that's fantastic news! Glad to hear all the hard work is paying off.

Thanks everyone! I appreciate all the kind thoughts.

Congrats Peter! And thanks guys for the support.

Fantastic work Mike!

Great to see UNITY rise to the top -- powerful proud my friend, powerful proud!

Thanks everyone! Amazed it's made it this far.

Congrats Jean! Thanks everyone for the kind thoughts again.

Great job Irin!

Thanks Mike and to everyone else.