Message Board

NO, I haven't heard anything yet. Have any of you?

I know they said they would send stuff out by next week. But what I would like to know is - if you made it to the quarter-finals, do you get notified by e-mail or snail mail like everyone else?

Faith--

You are notified by snail mail if you make the Quarters. It can be quite a dramatic event.

-The Other DG

I don't believe quarter-finals are decided until August sometime...?

Paul

Nicholl notifications will be distributed in the near future.

As you may know, the application includes a mention of letters being mailed "before August 1." They will be.

I realize I didn't answer a question.

We do send the letters via the USPS.

Thus far we have not used email for the distribution of notifications on any level and don't foresee making any change in the near future.

As always, thanks for your input Greg.

I'll anxiously wait by my mailbox like everyone else.

Doug

Doug--

Do you have a computer next to your mailbox? I hope you're working away on your next project.

Terri

Thanks Greg.

Paul

Just got that Best Written Rejection Letter ever sent out...

BUT... also got the personal GB note at the bottom - " in the next 10% ".

For those still on pins and needles and awaiting their fate. I am in No. Calif. I received the letter today and it was postmarked July 24. It's been my experience since my first Nicholl entry in 1999 that Regrets letters preceed the Quarters.

So due the Mail math and I wish all of you good luck who get the nod to move on.

Peter

Got mine this morning. A pass on my Drama. I expected it, since I'd gone back and worked on the script quite a bit more after entering it.

Good luck to everybody else who entered!

All of a sudden I really don't want to go home to check the mail.

Hey, don't put too much stock into the rejection. A friend of mine didn't even make the first cut in this year's competition. But this same script got him signed at Endeavor several months back. They packaged a director and actor and it just got financing on an independent level. Suddenly he's up for all these writing assignments and a very busy guy. I know the money would've been nice, but the judging is such a random, subjective thing that it has no real perspective on your talents as a writer. Chin up, people.

Thanks Martin.

I too got the kind rejection from Greg for a sci-fi comedy script called "Natural Mysfit".

However, this is the first year I entered any competitions (with Mysfit and others) so I'm not put off.

Some folks would say Why enter the Nicholl's on your first go-around? My answer: Why not.

Rejected.

Well, one script got top 10%. But the other that got next hundred last year got nada.

But I'm not upset. Nope.

Congrats Renee - Way to go!! in the top 10%

And about last years next 100 script which got the nada this year. I know its a disappointment but the fact that this year you received high marks (just not quite high enough) is an indicator that your scripts are doing very well! That's good - a couple of scripts doing well is a better indicator.

Another writer who had two different Semifinalist's scripts last year didn't make any cut, nor any person GB note this year.

Rejected.

No top 10%

Just rejected.

I suck.

Now on to the next mood swing...

At least I have a production company considering the same script after a reader in another contest loved it.

But they'll reject it, I know they will.

Oops...my mood swung again.

To hell with Hollywood, I'll make my own damn movie on DV!

I'll be so good that it'll win at Sundance. Yeah! Yeah! that'll show Hollywood. Yeah! Yeah!

I'd better hurry off and make the movie while I'm in such a great mood.

Good luck to everyone who advanced.

Doug

man, you want to hear about mood swings?

my script "death takes a vacation," as you may know, came in third on the writemovies.com screenplay contest, and is in the final 20 at scriptpimp.com contest, and the semi's at fiveanddime.com.

but....

a polite pass from nicholl, (not even in the "next 10%" as some of you have gotten) which is depressing enough,

but...

american accolades, which only got 600 entries this year, not only also passed on my script for the semi-final cut, they also sent a letter outlining the scripts "strengths" (which were few) and "weaknesses" (which were numerous as well as vague. in fact, when my wife read the letter, she said it sounded like they only read the first 10 and last 10 pages).

so i'm completely confused now. i know it's a subjective process, but boy, this is beyond subjective and moving into the schizophrenic. it's one thing to not make the cut in the biggest contest, but also in the smallest contest? while winning the medium contests?

i guess i should be really really happy with what i got, but i got the am.acc. and nicholl letters in the same week, so i feeling quite confused.

oh well, onward and upward, i guess...

Gil:

Like I said -- don't let it get you down. It's alot like gambling. You throw a quarter in a slot machine -- nothing. You throw in another quarter and bingo, you hit the jackpot. Both quarters were manufactured the same, the only difference is luck and timing.

I gave up working at an agent's desk for one of the big agencies (if not the biggest) to pursue writing. The agent I worked for stopped reading the Nicholl finalists because the quality just wasn't on the level of his clientele. Some of it was good, but most of it was mediocre and couldn't compete with the writers' who were selling scripts and getting assignments. In fact, some of the winners brought responses like, "What the hell were they thinking?"

That's just the way it goes with contests. Very subjective. Personally, I'd love to win the Nicholl for the money, but I've never entered. But you can't take it personal or try to attach meaning to rejection or winning. Just keep writing, get better and mine your contacts so that when opportunity presents itself, you're ready to slip your script to someone with complete confidence.

Thanks for the kind words Peter. I guess when you look at it that way, it's not as painful.

Rejected for my dark drama, SKEETER. This after reaching the quarters last year for my adaptation of my novel.

The Other DG

Martin--

Your friend wouldn't have been eligible now that he's making money! There's a reason for everything.

To Other Applicants--

Not to put winners down because almost every close screenwriting friend or close screenwriting acquaintance I have has won a major contest with lots of money, including the Nicholl--but I've read these scripts. They're not high-concept whatsoever. I think that's why very few get produced because they're such a hard sell.

I know someone very talented who has just advanced with an action-thriller. But I doubt if it'll win based on the fact that it's high-concept and has the potential to be a moneymaker.

Just my thoughts. . . .

P.S. In regards to other contests, I've come across people who read for them and not only were they some the worst Writers you'd ever come across, but very vindictive (they don't want ANY good scripts to win).

Years ago, I remember seeing people like Jack Lemmon, etc. as judges for the Nicholl. Jack was my next door neighbor on Tower Road in Beverly Hills. I was taking a walk one day and asked him how he was able to judge the best. He said, "No one can judge the best. I choose scripts that I would like as an actor." See? What did I tell ya? But he is right! Who can say what's the best? NO ONE! Because, when it comes to writing, no one can be the best. It's completely different from something like the Olympics where you win because you have the fastest time.

I suppose I should've said "was right" since Jack is no longer with us.

My entry " Frogmore Light " didn't make the cut in 2000, made the cut in Austin the same year, and sold in Sept 2001.

Oh... My three this year didn't make the cut. All high concept.. But a management co. an agent, prodcos, and a studio based prodco, have all recently responded positively to the log lines and synopsis and have asked to see them.

A friend of mine made the semi finals two years ago. He rcvd about five calls, resulting from his high placement.

Nicholl is simply the best contest. But, as Greg says, making a sale is what we're all ultimately trying to achieve.

Ron

Well, what can I add to what's already been well-stated - except, I'm not trying to make a sale; if it happens, great, and if it doesn't, I don't consider it an indictment of my writing. It would be an achievement to be offered a Nicholl Fellowship, but if not, it won't impede my striving to be the best writer I can be, to tell my stories in a way that others enjoy, to investigate new ways of expression. To everyone who advanced in Nicholl or any other competition, my hat is doffed to you. To those who did not advance, keep working and improving - not advancing, not winning is less a comment about your writing skills and talents, but more about how one or two persons reacted to your work. Hell, with 6 1/2 billion yet to applaud you, I wouldn't worry much about it. Good luck.

Terri - I'll bet your friend who advanced with an action/thriller is thrilled, and not advancing further will only prompt more work on his/her part.

Ellum--

I don't know what my friend plans to do re: his action-thriller. He's received a lot of interest. If he advances further in the Nicholl, he might try to play his cards right re: a sale since August is already upon us this week. Just because one makes a sale, doesn't mean money arrives pronto.

I have a feeling he'll do what another friend of mine did who won (but his was more artsy--not high-concept). He made arrangements to NOT officially have the sale until AFTER the Nicholl Fellowship was done and over with. He won the Nicholl, and he made a sale.

I have to admit, Ellum, I don't understand your comment about not trying to sell your work. Do you just want to write and not have anyone ever see/appreciate your work except contest judges?

My mind is filled right now with all those Artists and Writers who were considered failures until after their deaths--when they were finally appreciated.

Terri

My comedy/drama Snowflake missed out too. It's always a bit of a lottery getting past the first cut. The real competition starts with the 320 finalists.

Funny thing is, Snowflake got me a meeting with a well-known producer in LA a few weeks ago who is very interested in putting a deal together. I'm not holding my breath, but it shows that a script isn't necessarily dead when it doesn't advance.

steve --

i have a pet cockatiel named snowflake.

it was so funny to read your sentense "snowflake got me a meeting with a well known producer."

the image in my mind is hilarious! my little yellow pearly pied bird sitting at a big desk telling a producer "ya gotta meet with this kid, he's great, i tell ya!"

Steve,

You make a good point. The first readers, even in major competitions are the great flaw in all competitions. The real contest does begin after the cut. Before the cut, it is luck, fate, or some mad syncronicity. I always enter competitions cognizant of the reality that the quality and judgement of the first readers(even when I've gotten past them) leaves so much to doubt that it is indeed an utter gamble, and not something I allow myself to judge my material on, win or lose. In Austin I spoke with a particularly smug young competition reader who was openly commenting in front of writers, on the weakness of so many of the undeserving scripts she had endure. I asked her what she did for a living. She said she was a student working on her first novel. The idea of placing our career hopes in the hands this kind of fluke is something we should take a moment and think about when signing that contest check. There are people on this string that have made the Semi Finals, and now they can't make the cut. This speaks volumes about the crap shoot nature of early judging in competitions, more than the ability of the writer. And no single competition can be blamed for this. It's the nature of the beast...

" Hope can set you free... " Andy Dufresne " SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. "

Keep working..

Ron

Gil

In the script, Snowflake is a kid's pet. Picture me at the producer's office for my meeting. I announce myself to the secretary and she phones through to her boss - "the guy's here about the rabbit."

Ron, you are absolutely right. On the other hand, maybe my script really stinks!

Gil,

But your concept might be brilliant.. They (producers) go for the concept. They hire the most approiate writer(s) to make the script catch up with the concept. I'm sounding cynical.. But, ask Kosberg, the pitch king - or whatever his name is.

Ron

I offer my condolances to those who did not advance in this year's Nicholl competition and my congratulations to those who did (there's at least one who has posted in this thread).

In addition to repeating again that reading scripts is a subjective enterprise, I want to mention that it's not a crapshoot. In craps, one can win in the short term, but in the long run one will lose.

In screenwriting, in the short term anything can happen (i.e., a good script can be rejected or overlooked), but in the long term, so long as the writer doesn't give up, the most talented writers and best scripts will surface. Yes, luck is involved to an extent as to who judges your script at any competition level, first and later rounds. But it's only one element of the whole.

Greg,

Indeed.. " Crap shoot " was a callous and very poor choice of words on my part. My apologies..

Ron

I entered my script "Semper Fi" in Nicholl two years ago and didn't make the cut, but Greg wrote a kind encouragement in the margin that I was in the "next 50".

With that incentive I tweaked the script and last year made the quarterfinals.

This year, going for the gold, I tweaked it one last time--and got nothing! Nadda! No "next 50" or even an encouraging "next 10%" (Actual note from Greg Beal: "Your writing is drivel and you're a moron".)

So it could mean that contests are especially subjective until you get by the first reader, but it could also mean that the competition is getting tougher each year. I've seen other signs too, that that may be true.

So I'm retiring this worn script from competition. I did send it off to one last competition--it's 50th! (Can anybody beat that number?)

It's called "Latin USA". All I did is change my main characters names to hispanic. (No--I mean I really did!)

If this works for me then maybe I'll unretire Semper Fi and do the same approach for the gay and women contests. (No--I mean I really will)

I'll let you all know how it goes.

best, Jay

Greg,

Hopefully the "Crapshoot" thread will not take root over here. I lurked about on the AUTHA Board where Crapshoot, bitchin', gripin' and other cheap shots were being shot about. About Page 3 of the thread I put some time into my take on it - sent it off and zing - it was promptly lost in cyberspace along with my registration etc. My support to those who posted realistic assessments of the competiton.

As always you maintained a level of civility not matched by the "Carpers".

Without trying to resurrect my cyber-lost post. Yes, there is some subjectivity involved but in the long run the better scripts will rise to the surface and be recognized. And if by chance a few advance that are not as good as others that don't - well that happens in the reverse more than often than not.

Maybe just maybe the scripts that do not advance just don't quite make the grade. Or they just miss. Okay - just don't give up because with rewrites, polishes and hard work they will improve.

My script, Mitts made "in the next 10%" the first such personal note since I began entering (2000 not 1999 as I said above). I remembered you posting the cypher code for your notes and yep there it was Moviebytes 7/27/99. This script was a Gold Medal Winner, placed as a finalist and several semifinalists in other competitions. It did't quite make it at Nicholl. Maybe the competition is tougher (AND GETTING TOUGHER) - I think it is and the scripts that advance have just that little bit better quality.

It seems every year you take the time to answer the questions, field the gripes and always encourage the entrants who don't advance to take heart and keep writing.

Astounding.

How many Contest Administrators (or Contests for that matter) take the time to patiently answer questions from the also-rans - some of whom are a bit on the sour grapes side, have the decency to jot individual notes to about 630 (this year) entrants that came close, and repeat this exercise every year? The answer is NONE.

Greg, you run the best show in Town.

I second that. His personal attention and involvement is extraordinary.

And he is not offering pie-in-the-sky. I remember one of his postings in which he said that often even finalists' scripts are often not be competitive with the pros. (Hope I didn't misquote.)

That's good to be reminded of that because it can inspire us to continue to improve, rather than investing so much of our energies and time in marketing. (imho.)

Greg Beal wrote: "I want to mention that it's not a crapshoot. In craps, one can win in the short term, but in the long run one will lose."

One can also lose in the short term and hit a jackpot in the long term. When there is no established criteria in judging the merits of a screenplay then subjective taste becomes the deciding factor. It truly becomes a crap shoot when you consider the reader's experience, taste and motivations -- whatever they may be.

Greg manages a nice contest, with grace and class -- and I'm delighted to see writers' receive money to pursue their ventures, but it's not a stretch to suggest that he's not entirely objective with a contest that he oversees. Luck and timing is a huge element with any script receiving interest, even with the top writers' who are studio approved.

Peter,

On what criteria did you arrive at your assessment of " reslistic assessments " from all of the " carpers, " " cheap shots, " " bitchin, " gripin' " " also-rans, " and " sour grapes " on this msge set..?

Congrats on making the 10%

D. Jay

Keep pushing your " Semper Fi. " Don't let the fickled nature of contests and the market get to ya, Marine.. Your buddies in 3/4 would tell you to snap out of your candy - ass civillian crap. (I gotta be careful about using the word crap) That note you mention, doesn't sound like it came from Greg..

Ron

Ron,

My support of those making realistic assessments was directed at those posters (on the infamous Crapshoot thread of Nicholl Letters on another BB) who offered a "realistic" assessment of why certain scripts might advance. It usually being that the scripts were, on the whole better and should have advanced.

We all assume a bit of subjectivity and that is to be expected - it can't be eliminated - but it can be minimalized - which I think Nicholl tries to do. At least each script must be read to the end. If it merits a second read, then it gets one and if it merits a third. It gets a third. Total the scores and rank the entrants. Not perfect. Nothing is. But three reads - start to finish - pretty good stuff. And a damn site better than many other contests. Some contests instruct the readers in the beginning rounds to end at page 30, sometimes page 10 and some around page 50 or when the reader gets a strong feeling that the script just isn't good enough to advance. I know I have read for two contests - both pretty good - AND I read start to finish - FADE OUT.

The posts which I supported were those that gave a realisitic and thoughtful explanation of why this whole competition process has its limitations, and why we have to accept these. We all would like a perfect, absolutely fair appraisal of our work and be juudged accordingly, but this is not to be.

The solution for all of us is to continue to improve, continue to write, never give up and believe in ourselves. At least we will still be in the game.

If we quit, then it's game-set-match.

So for everyone who didn't advance in Nicholl this year, including me, there's next year, or maybe a sale and then there's no next year for Nicholl. I'll take that.

And for those who did advance - Bravo - it's a tough contest, you earned it and good luck in the next rounds.

Ron,

My support of those making realistic assessments was directed at those posters (on the infamous Crapshoot thread of Nicholl Letters on another BB) who offered a "realistic" assessment of why certain scripts might advance. It usually being that the scripts were, on the whole better and should have advanced.

We all assume a bit of subjectivity and that is to be expected - it can't be eliminated - but it can be minimalized - which I think Nicholl tries to do. At least each script must be read to the end. If it merits a second read, then it gets one and if it merits a third. It gets a third. Total the scores and rank the entrants. Not perfect. Nothing is. But three reads - start to finish - pretty good stuff. And a damn site better than many other contests. Some contests instruct the readers in the beginning rounds to end at page 30, sometimes page 10 and some around page 50 or when the reader gets a strong feeling that the script just isn't good enough to advance. I know I have read for two contests - both pretty good - AND I read start to finish - FADE OUT.

The posts which I supported were those that gave a realisitic and thoughtful explanation of why this whole competition process has its limitations, and why we have to accept these. We all would like a perfect, absolutely fair appraisal of our work and be juudged accordingly, but this is not to be.

The solution for all of us is to continue to improve, continue to write, never give up and believe in ourselves. At least we will still be in the game.

If we quit, then it's game-set-match.

So for everyone who didn't advance in Nicholl this year, including me, there's next year, or maybe a sale and then there's no next year for Nicholl. I'll take that.

And for those who did advance - Bravo - it's a tough contest, you earned it and good luck in the next rounds.

Please disregard the duplicate post.

Sometimes I wonder.

Ron,

The second post was intended to thank you for your words of encouragement.

Peter

Ron, you're right. Greg didn't really say that my writing was drivel and that I was a moron. I was just fooling around, it was Frederick Mensch.

Gil, Steve, Sue, Peter, Renee, Dennis, et al - I share your pain.

My entry also failed to make it to the quarterfinals of the Nicholls Fellowship competition. But my disappointment was compounded by the knowledge that Nicholls is no better than other contests in one respect: the randomness of the first round of judging.

According to Greg Beal in his letter of regret, less than half of the 6,048 entries were given a second read. That means that more than half of the scripts were at the mercy of one reader. A reader who may have gotten out of bed on the wrong side, had no interest in the subject you've written about, had little feel for the genre you were writing in, or simply didn't get what you were trying to say. And this is assuming that Nicholls is using industry professionals in the first round and not film students.

Greg candidly admits: "...while we strive to make the evaluation of screenplays as objective a process as possible, it is inherently both a personal and an extremely sujective matter." All the more reason why a second read by a second reader should be mandatory to counteract the inherent unfairness in having one person judge your work. Otherwise, the first round of juding becomes no better than a lottery, in which you must hope and pray you get a sympathetic reader. Yes, one read for the first round of judging my indeed be the modus operandi for other contests (and the industry in general), but one has come to expect more from the Nicholls people. As more than one person has noted on this site, it is considered the Rolls Royce of contests. Even placing in the semi-finals gets attention, as I personally found out a few years ago.

Greg's observation - "...so long as a writer doesn't give up, the most talented writers and best scripts will surface" - I find somewhat disingenuous. We are not in an era where the cream rises to the top. And it's all well and good to say that Nicholls is only one competition, and that you should be inspired to work even harder on the next project. But after more than a year of writing, re-writing, polishing, and re-polishing a script it is heartbreaking enough to be rejected by a competition as prestigious and as infulential as Nicholls - to be rejcted based on the opinion of only one reader is beyond frustrating. And not all the self-effacement and grace in Greg Beal's sympathetic letter can take away the bitterness of not being given a fair shake.

Greg suggests that who judges your script at any competition level, first and later rounds, is only one element of the whole competition. This may be, but if that element prevents your script from advancing for any other reason than poor quality, than that element is inherently unfair.

Actually I don't care if scripts are read all the way through in the first round and I don't care if the judging is fair, but I sure would like to know what it is about my script that is preventing it from moving on, so I could fix it.

David E.

Hi,

I just wanted to be among the chorus of people who congradulate the Nicholl. And it's not just because I somehow managed to get a script into the quarterfinals of this years contest.

I'm admittedly new to the screenwriting world and have only been trying this a short time - but any contest that gives you a front to back read (even if only one), has prompt notifications even with 6,000 entries, and even personal notes on rejection letters (I entered two scripts and the one that got rejected mentioned better news to follow), deserves the praise it gets. It's definately better than I've seen in the myriad of other contests out there. Some that don't even bother to tell you that you've lost out.

While advancing was definately cool - and the highlight of my short screenwriting career - as GB mentions in his letters, how you do in a contest (even a good one) isn't and shouldn't be the defining aspect of a writer. Anyone who wastes time ranting about the contest system and the unfairness within them is wasting breath. Even with 10 reads a contest may be no more fair, no less arbitrary, no more unpredictable.

But to me the fairness or unfairness of the contests don't matter because I'm not foolish enough to believe that my ultimate success or failure depends upon it. It may help. It can't hurt. But I've mainly been entering contests because I need and like to write to deadlines. But my goal certainly isn't to win these things. My goal is to create good stories. Write well. Learn how to sell my stories and myself. Keep improving and hopefully, get something sold one day.

I guess I should reply to the post I started! LOL!

I got my letter too. I got a little personal note saying I was:

"Among the next 50"

I'm actually thrilled to bits that I got that far. And my calculations tell me that means I was in the top 6%. YAY ME!!

I'm going to Pitch Fest this week-end and you can bet I will be telling every company this.

Peter,

Thanks.. I didn't know there was another string on this always emotionally cumbersome matter. I think we're all looking for an impossible level of perfection in an impossibly subjective business that so fleetingly responds only to preceived winners. It's a shame that none of us have taken a moment to support Greg about the potential enormous $$$$(costs) of meeting our needs for better (professional) early evaluation. Are we all willing to pay around $500.00 or more per script as an entry fee. Gotta give some to get some...

Best of luck in the Semi Finals.

D. Jay,

Cool...

Ron

Vincent:

I can absolutely sympathize with your frustration that after a full year of writing, rewriting, polishing and repolishing a script it still gets rejected by a powerhouse like Nicholl’s. But as someone who lives and works in the industry, let me assure you that time doesn’t measure much.

Forrest Gump took nearly ten years to get off the ground. William Goldman takes six months just to complete a first draft, and he’s William Goldman. I advanced to the Quarterfinals this year with a script that was previously rejected, and that script took seven years of my life to perfect. But I loved it, and I tweaked it, and I refused to let it die. Finally, it paid off. Greg Beal is right about that.

The truth is, you cannot know that your script was judged and tossed aside by one reader alone. It may have been, yes—nothing is impossible and no system is perfect. But it may also have been dismissed by one reader because one read was enough. It wasn’t on the level, and it was put aside. Or, it may have been loved by one reader and hated by the second. Or maybe three people read it and scored it fairly evenly, but the scripts that advanced simply scored higher.

The point I’m trying to make is that writing is a deeply personal vocation. It hurts like motherf***ing hell when someone rejects you for your sweat and blood. Please trust me, I know how you feel. I have been rejected by some of the biggest people in Hollywood, and for a time, it had me thinking that maybe I couldn’t swing it. “Oh, I give up. I mean, if so and so big director changed his mind about me, won’t everyone else???”

Don’t fall into those traps. I did, and it was scraping and clawing all the way just trying to find my way back to full confidence. It used to piss me off when I got ripped apart by people who “knew what they were talking about,” because I felt they just didn’t understand me. And some of them didn’t. I had a reader at William Morris who was clearly pissed at his girlfriend when he read my romantic comedy, and he was scathing in his review. But here’s the thing: He was also right. I’ve now learned to take criticism not as a categorical slap in the face, but as a potential kick in the ass to make me work harder.

I had a lot of lucky breaks and a great number of opportunities early on in my career, almost all of which I blew by putting out work that wasn’t ready to be seen. I have done this. I have said the words “It’s perfect. I wouldn’t change a thing,” about a script, only to rewrite it entirely after a rejection and then get a producer’s interest—and subsequently discover the script was better for it.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a hell of a lot wrong with this industry—politics, self-interest, subjectivity, mood swings, nepotism, fear, jealousy, and just plain flat-out stupidity. But my work involves reading scripts on a regular basis, and the fact of the matter is, for every ten I read only three show promise, and I’m lucky if one is actually well written—and in case you’re wondering, I like and read every genre, from big budget popcorn flicks to edgy German cinema. I’m open to everything, and I am positively galvanized when I read that rare gem, but half of the scripts I receive are not even typed in the proper format or have gross formatting errors. Some have no protagonist—at all. Some are written like novels, entirely impossible to film or visualize. Some are just plain dull. Some use flowery fonts that are totally inappropriate, and some arrive, astoundingly, written in broken English.

If this is any indication of the 6,048 scripts Nicholl’s received, then it is no wonder not all of them received more then one read. I would bet the house that a good number of those scripts simply didn’t deserve it. I mean, if a person submits a velo bound script in Bookman Old Style, complete with illustrations, and the first 20 pages are torturous (one of the lovelies I’ve seen), why should they be taken seriously? Why should a second reader be subjected when it is clear the script is a pass? There is simply too much work and too little time to accommodate it.

Maybe your script did get the short end of the stick with a bad reader, and in that case, it is truly unfair. Plenty of good scripts fall into the love-it-or-hate-it category, and subjectivity then only exacerbates the likelihood of overlooking good work. But I repeat, no system is perfect, so in the end, the most you can ask for is timeliness, professionalism, encouragement, and a contest head who is as open, honest, and willing to address concerns as Greg Beal is.

Your script may be fantastic and unlucky. But it may also need work. I cannot possibly know. Therefore I would caution all writers who receive rejection letters not to do as I once did and incontrovertibly assume it is the contest that failed—or lose faith in the process. I would take the opportunity to reexamine my work with a fresh pair of eyes and ideally push that script into greatness.

Or, if I determine my script is already great, then I would brush off my disappointment and, as so many other MovieBytes members have suggested, leave the loss behind me, redouble my efforts and soldier on with pride. Cream does rise to the top, but it can require unspeakable patience and persistence to wade through the crap this town puts in our path.

Remember, Hollywood time is like God time—a week to us is a minute to them and a year? Forget about it. Just keep plugging and if you’re genuinely talented, chances are that someone, somehow, will notice.

M.

Wow-- so much here.

Just my opinion--

As some of you know, I've chaired a few playwriting contests (including the Gassner) and I ran a new playreading program for about 4 years at a Regional Theatre.

All script selection is subject to bias. This is not bad nor is it good, it simply is. I've always used coverage forms... still there is a certain amount of bias in any judging. Not a science.

This is why someone like Gil has placed well in many and not placed in others. My own script THE WATERCRESS has been doing the same in various contests (made the top 6% in the Nicholl this year).

If it made the cut (5%) does that mean it's a better script? No. It simply means it made that cut.

People judge talent, technique, creativity, decorum all the time. Writers, actors, directors, designers request this feedback. More times than not, it will be negative.

Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman was turned down by 17 Broadway Producers who could not understand why anyone would want to sit through a play about a loser like Willie Loman. Producer Kermit Bloomgarten found Willie and the play moving and fascinating. And it turned out so did millions of others. Still, there are many who hate that play and think it is a terrible piece of writing (I'm not one).

Greg Beal's finely written rejection letter is right on target in all areas. How many receive Nicholls per year? Is it 10... 5? Chances are you'll be eliminated; that's the math.

Years ago I won a highly prestigious playwriting award and I thought-- "I made it." Well, I hadn't. A few people prized my work over many others. A few months after winning that award a high profile agent rejected my work, indicating that I should never write again. (Tell me not to breathe, I can deal with that.)

Case in point: I was chairing a playwriting contest (not the Gassner) which was set up so that an independent judge who had not be involved in any part of the evaluation process up to that point, would read the finalists and choose the winner. There were three finalists and one which I felt was the clear winner. It was by all means the best written script in terms of dialogue, character development, plot, etc. The finalist judge agreed with me on all of these points, but also felt another script (inferior in terms of technique) should win because the voice of the writer was the most unique of the three. That, to them, was more important than anything else.

This is why they make vanilla and chocolate... and many other flavors.

No selection process is perfect but the Nicholl, which must handle a huge voulme of scripts, has a good one and a fair one.

It doesn't mean it's not frustrating.

It's great that the Nicholls care so much about the art of screenwriting. They've put their money into an art and a craft that we all care very much about... okay, we LOVE it... and each year if we choose to, we have another chance to compete.

You can win a contest, numerous contests, and never get produced; and you can never win a contest and sign a deal for $350 against $600. And, as one producer once said, "just because one person wants to invest a few million in getting your play on stage... doesn't mean it's a good or bad play. It just means someone want's to invest a few million dollars in something THEY think is good."

May all of us earn the prize and find our own Kermit Bloomgartens.

Best,

Paul

Anyone know when the semi-final list might come out? I couldn't find an approximate timetable.

We don't release any lists until after we announce the finalists. Which doesn't happen until about October 1.

Semifinalist letters will be mailed by the end of August.

Terri -

My comment about not trying to make a sale was in response to an earlier statement that making a sale is proof of the quality of a writer's work. I couldn't disagree more. A sale simply means that someone wanted to make a movie that you've written, and it probably will not end up to be the story you wrote, but will be altered by everyone in the movie-making process that has an opinion and the clout to enforce that opinion.

Writing cannot be about sales. I believe those writers whose visions are set on potential income are bound to be disappointed, and that writers who strive to tell their stories with compassion and honesty, in an engaging style, peopled with characters deserving of our emotional involvement, will attract readers and viewers; those that do not tell their stories in interesting ways will not.

I realize that this will seem egoistic, but the biggest critic -- and the only critic I have ever cared about -- is my own evaluation of my work. Have I done with the material the best I am capable; have I accomplished with the selected material what I believed was possible at the outset; have I produced a work that has been worth the effort? When I can answer affircative to the critic within, I feel that my work has been successful and I can leave it and move on to another challenge.

I hope that no writer ever begins a new project with contest-winning in mind. Such a goal cheats the writer of pride in his/her work that should naturally flow from creative expression. There is no formulae for contest-winning. There is no formulae for writing a 'commercial' script. There is a formulae for literary success: write what interest you; write everyday; write something that others have not thought of writing; write with clarity and grace and about things that touch our inner-most fears and longings; and be glad that you can leave something behind for others to experience when you're gone from this world.

I may not have answered your question, Terri, and I'll continue to try to sell what I write, and I'll continue to write without allowing rejection by any person to dissuade me.

Sorry to come back to this topic so late, but my computer was down. Again.

James - I don't think it's wasting one's time or breath "ranting" about the basic unfairness of a contest, if the contest can do as much for you as a good showing in the Nicholls can. I agree with you that a contest's results should not define a writer, but since it can open doors for you it becomes an invaluable tool. You don't need an agent, previous credits or a contact in the business to participate. But if the judging is no more than Russian Roulette - it's cheaper to buy a lottery ticket.

Ron - If it costs $35 an entry to give half the entries a second read, I don't see how it would cost $500 to read the other half. Especially since Nicholls' sponsor is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. A fraction of their take from the televising of the Oscar ceremonies I would think would take care of any additional costs.

Marleine - Thanks for the pep talk, but it was unnecessary. I've been writing for years and, like most writers, I'm familiar with rejection. And I have absolutely no intention of throwing in the towel based on the results of one contest. On the contrary, the knowledge that the contest eliminated my script possibly on the basis of one opinion only makes me more determined to reach the right person.

And let me assure you that my script does not fall into the unprofessional category that you so often encounter. But even if it did, it would still deserve to be treated with respect. After all, what one reader might consider unprofessional, another might consider refreshingly original. And while I'm not suggesting that my script is perfect or that it might not need some work, I've been writing long enough to know it's better than most of the scripts that actually do get made into movies. If I didn't have that much confidence in myself, I would stop writing.

You say that by working in the industry for many years you are well aware of its faults. And yet, you to seem to ascribe to the belief that what Hollywood buys must be good. Have you seen Hollywood's product lately? Wrong choices are being made every day as to which projects should be greenlighted. Something must be inherently wrong.

While I fully expected the outpouring of support for both Nicholls and Greg Beal, I'm dismayed by the assumption that they and other Hollywood professionals must know what they're talking about, and it must be you - the writer - who is at fault. In a thread started by Terri Dickey entitled - "How Important Is The Writer?!!" - she suggests that writers "get NO RESPECT in this biz!" Many agreed with her. I would humbly suggest that Hollywood writers get no respect because - they don't insist on it! Too often writers will forsake control over their work for the almighty dollar. This was illustrated during the last Writers Guild negotiations with the studios. Certain demands, such as the director's possessory credit on a film, were put aside to avoid a payless payday.

I'm not naive enough to suggest that one writer complaining or even an entire site of writers complaining is going to make life easier for the screenwriter. In era where by-the-numbers, special effects-laden action films with the same recycled plots are the bread and butter of the industry, writers really are treated like a dime-a-dozen. Perhaps the contests should be treated, as Martin Beamer suggested in an earlier post, as strictly a gamble that has little to do with a judgment of quality. If you win, consider yourself lucky and use all the attention you get from it to make a sale. If you don't win, don't consider it a reflection on your script, but the luck of the draw.

I rather thought Nicholls was better than that. And my suggestion of a second read was meant to reflect that belief. After all, if we writers can constantly improve our scripts, I don't think it's asking too much for a contest to improve its juding. Even Telluride in a recent posting aobut their method for picking winners in their contests stated - "All entries recieve a minimum of two previews - for we like to get a second opinion on everything."

Vincent,

Regards the potential cost of $500.00 for a professional reader - it was just a wild guess based on what professional readers charge. Whether a contest read by a professional reader makes any true difference and makes contest evaluation better remains anyone's guess, since even professional readers vary greatly in quality and are as subjectively inclined as a novice reader. Luck seems to remain the deciding factor in the end, regardless... Ya' pay ya money and ya make ya choice... Sad... very sad..

Ron

"This was illustrated during the last Writers Guild negotiations with the studios. Certain demands, such as the director's possessory credit on a film, were put aside to avoid a payless payday."

That's not completely true. This was discussed and negotiated (or should I say "compromised"?). The only time a film can now say "a so-and-so film," is if the director previously had that on other films. If you're directing a film for the first time, then no--it will not say "A TERRI DICKEY FILM." But if you already have a "directing" track record, then it will (or can, I should say), i.e., "A STEVEN SPIELBERG FILM."

Does something sound awkward about this... BEETHOVENS'FIFTH, a symphony by Leonard Bernstein..

Or.. THE HOMECOMMING, a play by..? WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF, a play by..? HAMLET, a play by...? LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT, a play by..?? DEATH OF A SALESMAN, a play by..? WAITING FOR LEFTY, a play by..? THE CHERRY ORCHARD, a play by..?

HAROLD PINTER, EDWARD ALBEE, SHAKESPEARE, ARTHUR MILLER, CLIFFORD ODETS, ANTON CHEKHOV.. Even Harold Clurman wouldn't think of putting his name infront of the writer...

Only in Hollywood...

Ron

Oh.. I forgot Eugene Oneill.. But, than, he was only the writer..

Ron

Vince, nothing in Hollywood is remotely perfect, but as contests go, I respect Nicholl’s. If you don’t, so be it. This is America, and you’re allowed.

However, my post was aimed mainly to point out that writers—who without question do not get enough respect—can sometimes overlook an opportunity to improve their work when they receive a rejection. We are often just as subjective about our writing as contests or readers can be. But I did not ever say, allude to or “ascribe to the belief that what Hollywood buys must be good.” Only an idiot would.

Make no mistake about how I feel: Writers are treated like crap, even when they’re well paid. Writers get the least amount of credit for a good film, but get a great deal of blame when a film flops. It’s ridiculous. Without words, you have nothing to direct, nothing to shoot, nothing to act—it all depends on us. But that doesn’t mean that just anybody can do it, or that the Powers That Be are entirely mindless of talent.

Like everything else, the reality lies somewhere in between. Crap gets made all the time, yes. But the greater frustration is that there is not some insidious cadre of suits purposefully greenlighting garbage to piss off the movie-going public and disgust aspiring writers. The truth is, many beautiful scripts that were good enough to be purchased and produced are destroyed by hack directors who have egos the size of Kansas. Sometimes they’re destroyed by actors who can’t handle the material. And sometimes they’re ruined by itchy studio execs who are so desperate to hang onto their jobs that they figure if one writer is good, two can only be better—and they rewrite the thing into literary oblivion.

The point is, what you see on screen is not necessarily an indicator of what was bought. While no one in Hollywood could ever explain to me the need to produce Freddy Got Fingered, remake Psycho, or torture us with a tedious vanity romp like S.W.A.T., I know that sometimes things aren’t quite so black and white.

The original script for Godzilla was much smarter than the movie shot. It excited the studio and launched the production—then Dean Devlin and Roland Emerich completely "reworked it" and turned it into a joke. Conversely, the original script for Braveheart dipped frequently into sentimental hokum, and was partly saved by Mel Gibson. So much is left to chance, and while many execs peddle the art of filmmaking like Campbell’s Soup nowadays, there are still some who know and love their product better than most. The best defense a writer has against this impossible dilemma is to write the absolute best work they can. To exceed the competition by miles. Not to aim for the middle, hoping to compete with the mediocrity in the theatres, but to aim for the Oscar, for the moon—for a script so astounding Hollywood will let you have anything you want just to get it. Only then can you really bargain with dignity—and even then, if you aim for the sky and you fall, you will still likely land above the rest.

The best article written on the subject is “Crap-plus-one,” by Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, scribes of Pirates of the Caribbean, (no, not Shakespeare, but still a clever script for something based on a ride). You can read it at Wordplayer.com and it’s fantastic. It makes very plain the fact that writers need the highest possible standards, to always be willing to improve themselves, to be more aware of the reality of Hollywood and of their own weaknesses. Once you are, you can transcend them all. And that is the only point I was fighting to make.

Marleine -

First, I never said I didn't respect Nicholls. I merely pointed out what I believe to be a serious flaw in a contest that is so influential. I wouldn't bother to criticize a contest that wasn't respected.

Next - the point I was making was - that to assume your script is at fault becasue one reader didn't appreciate it, is self-destructive. Naturally, if you get feedback from several contests and they all hone in on the same flaw or defects, you would be foolish not to consider the criticism as valid. But what you suggest is to make a career of rewriting the same script over and over on the implied, but not specified criticism of contests. That's not logical or productive. Even if you were to receive feedback (and that's rare), how do you know what they suggest is valid? Your heart, your instincts my tell you quite the opposite. Who do you listen to? In the end, I think, if you value your own talent, you have to listen to yourself and let the chips fall where they may. If a writer becomes so insecure that he's willing to rewrite his script with every rejection - guessing at what might be the problem - he will eventually lose all sense of perspective as to what is good and what is bad. I believe I've used this Coen brothers quote before. It's from the forward of the published edition of their "Blood Simple" - "The rule is, you quit rewriting when your manuscipt starts to bore you. Only the amateur, who has boundless energy and who lacks the imagination to quit, ever works beyond that point. Consult, then, your heart. Once your work feels stale and tiresome you should present it to the public. Anyway, that's what we do."

Yes, I realize that what you see on the screen is not always what the original writer intended. And that indeed it has been corrupted by too many cooks in the kitchen. But that only emphasizes my point. These hack directors, insecure actors and "itchy" studio heads are all well intentioned. None of them are out to make a purposely bad movie. But they all think they know what's best. And that, in the end, is what will ruin a beautiful script.

You say - "The best defense a writer has against this impossible dilemma is to write the absolute best work he can." To not - "aim for the middle, hoping to compete with the mediocrity in the theatres, but to aim for the Oscar, for the moon - for a script so astounding Hollywood will let your have anything you want just to get it." You picture a world where the writer can rise above the mediocrity that is currently Hollywood as long as he perseveres. That strikes me as simplistic and naive. There is no set formula for wriing an astounding script. I don't know about anybody else, but when I sit down to write I don't waste my time aiming for medicority. I aim to knock Hollywood's socks off. Whether I end up doing that is one thing, whether Hollywood will recognize it as such, is quite another. It think the best any writer can aim for is to reach someone who understand his writing and is willing to fight for it.

I'm sure many would support your point of view as the reality of today's Hollywood establishment, and I'm just howling in the wind. But I stand by what I suggested. And what I suggested is that a good contest could be made better. I think even Greg Beal would agree to that.

Semi-Finalist notifications were mailed yesterday.

Good luck to all.

Vince, I am afraid you may misinterpret me no matter what I say, but I’d still like to try and make a few things clear:

1. I work in this business, and while much of what I see arouses great frustration, I’m also inspired by a good deal of it. All is not lost for the writer—I'm not claiming you said it is, I'm merely pointing out that I prefer to approach the industry with the knowledge that the impossible is possible if you only have the talent, aim for the moon, and refuse to quit. If that seems simplistic and naïve to you, I think you’re missing my point.

When M. Night Shyamalan came into this business, he approached it as such: "I didn't want [a film critic] to hold my destiny...so I decided I was going to write the greatest script ever, and everything was going to change. It's going to be mine, and they'll have to let me direct it because they won't get it any other way."

Then he wrote The Sixth Sense, and Disney let him direct it with almost total control—for the first time in his life. Now he basically names his own ticket. He lives a writer’s dream. Is this going to happen for everyone? No. But it’s possible, and it is that kind of “astounding” greatness to which I aspire. You said yourself, “when I sit down to write I don't waste my time aiming for mediocrity. I aim to knock Hollywood's socks off.” That’s all I’m talking about. Yet some writers see a lousy film and think that they can somehow compete, that if somebody produced a piece of crap, they might be willing to buy a piece of slightly superior crap. You are certainly not one of those writers, but they’re out there. I’ve worked with them.

2. I didn’t say you should make a career of rewriting, Vince. Please don’t exaggerate my point. What I said is that writers can sometimes overlook an opportunity to improve their work when they are rejected—because it sucks to be told you suck. That’s it. I’m not suggesting this applies to you, I’m simply making the point because I have done this. I have refused to acknowledge my own weaknesses after receiving criticism (some from producers, some from friends, some from my own editor) to the detriment of my work, and I’ve since learned from that. Now, “if a writer becomes so insecure that he's willing to rewrite his script with every rejection - guessing at what might be the problem - he will eventually lose all sense of perspective as to what is good and what is bad.” I agree. You’re your own best judge and you must learn to trust your instincts—but you can also be your own worst enemy. I was merely cautioning against that fact. Balance is they key.

3. I absolutely agree that Nicholl’s could be made even better. I merely got into this to say that I think it’s the best of the bunch.

Hope that clears things up, Vince, because for the most part I think you and I agree about the zoo that is Hollywood. You’re not howling in the wind by any means—and even if you are, you’ve got plenty of company.

Z. Core:

How do you know that Nicholl semifinalist letters were 'mailed yesterday?' Are you with Nicholl?

Greg Beal, help us out here.

Thanks

Ellum, I wondered the same thing, but Z. Core is right. I received mine this afternoon.

M.

Marleine --

Thanks. May I enquire if you are now a semifinalist?

Thanks.

Ellum

Happily, yes I am. You too, I hope?

Good luck to everyone...

M.

Does anyone know when the Nicholl finalists are notified? I believe it's the end of this month but I'm not sure.

Hmmm. I just found a page at "attention-to-details Web Design" that was very interesting. Here's the link:

http://www.attention-to-details.com/newslog/39c-nicholl-semi-finalists.asp

The article is by Johanna McKnight. Here's her claim, re: Nicholl semifinalists:

"Usually, [on the message boards] around this time of year, you can read hundreds of messages from aspiring screenwriters reporting if they made the cut or not.

"Strangely, this year, there have been almost no messages from people who advanced, and only one - one! - message from someone who reached the semifinals. Strange. Very strange...

"What does that mean? Does that mean that the screenwriting hysteria has died down a bit? Last year, the Nicholl's set a new entry record, beating their old record by over a thousand. This year, they received about the same. The incline of entries has stalled.

"But that doesn't explain why, last year, about a dozen entrants 'outed' themselves early, boasting about the letters they received with 'little gold man' envelopes, and this year, (almost) no one."

So, far, okay, Johanna. I wasn't here, last year. I don't know if this year's any different. I do know that the one person who "outed" herself was asked, flat out, if she had advanced, and she said, "Happily, yes I am." And we are all keeping our fingers crossed for Marleine. :o)

And I don't know if Eric is hinty-hinting, but if you are, good luck to you, too.

But Johanna goes on to say: ". . . maybe the Nicholl's have adjusted their criteria a bit. Maybe they started weeding out 'older' scripts that were being entered year after year, with few or no rewrites, in favor of new, fresh material from 'unknowns.'"

Whoa!

Let me assure you, Johanna, and anyone else that's cruising through our message boards, that that's certainly not the case.

Remember Occam's Razor? "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one." I don't think we need to be looking for a conspiracy, here.

Shell

While I cannot speak to everything in Johanna's article, I can assure those who care to know that there are, indeed, several Nicholl semifinalists (to whom I've spoken) lurking about the MovieBytes message boards—they've simply chosen to remain anonymous.

In fact, had I not been asked, I would likely not have posted my status. It may be a simple case of low-key caution or humility keeping people quiet.

And thanks for the note of good luck, Shell. I really appreciate it.

:o)

M.

See?

Simple, logical explanation.

Shell :o)

Sometimes when a person asks a question on a BB, that's all it is - A QUESTION. I didn't intend to hint at anything or boast about making the semi-finals. I was simply seeking information. Believe it or not, the only thing between the lines were blank spaces.

Dear Eric,

I'm sorry I offended you. I saw your note while checking to see if I'd spelled Marleine's name correctly in my post, and wanted to offer you my best wishes if you were in the running.

Please accept my sincere apology.

Michele

No sweat, Michele. You caught me on a very tough Monday and I have a rather strong aversion to braggarts.

Thanks, Eric--

Glad Monday's over and I hope your Tuesday is better.

Shell :o)

So has anyone gotten their Finalist notification yet? They should be here any day now. The wait is killing me!

I don't think it will be until next week.

Greg Beal scheduled to do several of the panels at Austin this weekend, so I imagine Monday at the earliest for finals notification.

Oops. Wrong. Letters went out on Friday.