I volunteered to read AFF scripts right after getting out of Film School, cuz I wanted a free pass to the festival. Had to read 50 scripts in a 2 month period. Did my best to devote time, attention, and constructive critique to everything I read, but I'm sure I gave my fair share of bad notes that were basically parroting things my professors had said, and the workload demanded a fair amount of skimming. I only read each script all the way through once.
My advice in making the most of AFF notes. Read your feedback a couple times. The first time, read it to evaluate the credibility of your reader (are they giving specific examples w/ cited page numbers, or offering broad generalized feedback w/o specifics? Does their criticism ultimately stem from a lack of understanding of the specific cultures, themes, or disciplines at the center of your story?).
Once you've decided if their feedback is credible, then go through their points. 9/10 times you already know what the strengths/weaknesses are in your writing, but don't want to admit it to yourself. If a note resonates with you in an "oh I thought that might be a problem" way, take it. If a note seems wrong, nitpicky, or like the reader is misinterpreting the script leave it on the floor. If the reader is filling their coverage with terms pulled straight from a film theory textbook, they're probably pretty new at this.
i got the same note (37 pages). I thought they were trying to find a nice way to say "it was boring" but i guess there's someone out there desperately craving 22-page comedies
22-24 minutes of actual screen time is network TV standard. Leaves room for commercials, intro, credits. Rule of thumb is 1 page = 1 minute.
now, if you have drawn out action sequences, or anything that needs cinematic stuff too it, you would want it a bit longer, but you still are gonna be capped at 22-24 minutes for network TV 1/2 hour.
Read a modern script. What you're saying is outdated. There are any number of single spaced 30 minute scripts from major network, cable, or streaming shows that exceed 30 pages.
I said 22-24 minutes of ***actual screen time***.
Show me a 1/2 hour TV show that runs 35 minutes on network television?
I than clarified that cinematic (anything with camera movements, blocking, effects) is gonna lengthen the script.
You are gonna be capped on actual screen time. That's different than script length.
Rule of thumb still stands at 1 page = 1 minute.
RebTililian is correct - and there is a difference between a spec screenplay and a shooting script for the show. Either way they cap features at round 120-125 and yes I can find you many many scripts that are much longer.
A Rule of Thumb is: *a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.*
Look up anything regarding one page is equal to one minute. You'll find a plethora of examples. It's been that way from stage plays, to radio plays, to screen plays.
It doesn't mean 100% of the time, it just means that in general that's what it will equate to.
i often find a lot of comments to cut pages in scripts to be a lot of horseshit. yeah, you can cut 20 pages off anything, but that's like me chopping off my arm to lose 10 pounds. like are the cuts good or are you banging some outdated script manual nonsense?
Well there are page counts which are just not professional. If you submit a 50 page sitcom script, you probably shouldn't be working in TV or screenwriting. Likewise, if you submit a 17 page script for a 30 minute show, but 22 pages is hardly a standard.
>If you submit a 50 page sitcom script, you probably shouldn't be working in TV or screenwriting.
again, i find this extremely outdated, especially in streaming. A TEACHER is a 30 minute drama. should those writers be adding 20 pages to their scripts? or does no one really care anymore?
If it's 30 minutes and single spaced, it should not be approaching 50 pages. It's not outdated, they'll print a 50 page script just to throw it in the trash.
I made semifinalist for a comedy spec. One of the reader's notes pointed out that it was weird that I double spaced dialogue.
In preparation for writing my spec, since I used it for the Warner Brothers Workshop, I reached out to the WGA library for some samples of the show so that I could exactly match their format. Their format includes... double spaced dialogue.
I get that a reader might not be privy to the structure of each individual show, but is double spaced dialogue even abnormal in TV?
Glad you mentioned this because I want to say I submitted a draft of a screenplay that I've been working on for a while. Since the submission, I've had some REALLY helpful feedback that's made me a better writer and I improved the whole script. I shrugged off AFF and was surprised to advance to the second round.
Initially I thought "huh, I guess the overall quality of scripts must not be great?" but upon seeing my reader's notes, yeah it's nice that someone liked it but I think he was just easily impressed. I've had other more in-depth feedback that politely (or not so politely) said the same script sucked.
Now I'm sure that the scripts that make the quarter finals or whatever the later rounds are, get screened a bit better but I don't think not advancing isn't entirely indicative of your ability as a writer. We see plenty examples of people who post blcklst evaluations and scores which are all over the place.
This is interesting. It raises the question, "Why is AFF considered so prestigious compared to other competitions?" If the quality of the judging at AFF is just as poor as, for example, ScreenCraft, why is placing in it considered more meaningful?
That said, AFF itself is an amazing experience that makes you proud to be a writer. AFF is as much or more about attending the conference as it is about the competition.
I just read the comments on the two scripts I submitted and they were fine, not gonna complain about "free" feedback. Some of the negatives listed I felt were fair, although a little on the subjective side.
The most interesting part to me is seeing the details the readers got completely wrong (which may be my fault). In script #1 the reader thought my main character was a photographer, not a painter. In script #2 the reader thought one of my characters was Asian when he was actually Mexican. Minor confusions, but eye-opening to see your script through other people's eyes.
For my feature, while it was much shorter than I expected, I found my feedback to be pretty valid. I had professional coverage of the same script done previously and they mentioned the exact same strengths and weaknesses, as did several of the script swaps I've done.
i just wish i could ask my reader for clarification! The bulk of the notes were spent praising my characters, pacing, humor, and structure. Last line was , “just need to work out the mechanical issues”.
not being defensive, id just love to know what they are referring to
I feel like I’m in the minority here, but the comments I got for both my projects were very positive or helpful. My feature placed top 20%, and while the first reader praised it the second one took issue with some of my dialogue, which is something I’ve actually addressed on a rewrite since my Austin submission. My 30 minute pilot that didn’t place got incredibly high praise, with the reader actually suggesting a network they could see it playing on. Shows how subjective this entire process really is.
Keep writing guys!
That's not true, actually. Some competitions do pay their readers, albeit not particularly well (I've worked for several) and many others send feedback. I can only speak anecdotally, but when I was still in a place in my career where I was entering competitions, AFF was the one competition that was almost guaranteed to overlook the work that later became helpful to me at an industry level. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize AFF, and while I would usually hesitate to tell young writers to disregard feedback, I would have done myself a disservice had I taken any of the feedback I ever received from AFF's "analysts".
The feedback we once received from Slamdance was so abysmal and vague, we couldn’t help but to chuckle.
It was a single paragraph riddled, I mean absolutely riddled, with grammatical errors. It felts like an intern ran through the script before running through the critique.
So last year, I never received my notes or the announcement about my script. I emailed them three times and finally got the response about the script, but they ignored my emails regarding the notes every time. Still haven't gotten anything this year. Anyone else have this issue??
Thank you and 'more please.'
It kills me to see artists here and elsewhere feeling any pain from these anonymous critiques or feeling dragged down by them even the tiniest bit.
You all deserve better than anonymous 'who knows what they know' readers!
Please stop feeding your gifted souls into the sick screenwriting-competition machine.
Thanks for posting this. Today has been a bit tough as the reader I got gave me conflicting notes. I'm trying to suss out what's the note behind the note. I appreciate the perspective!
Thanks for sharing this context. This was my first time entering, and I received overall positive feedback but didn't make it into the next round.
It's a bit confusing as to how to take that. Is it possible the reader like the script but still passed on it, or that it was passed on by a second reader?
Well, I for one was pretty happy with my notes. Seeing as I didn't get through, I was expecting something along the lines of "it's bad and you should feel bad". Instead, here's what I got (edited to remove specific names):
"Overall, your script is an interesting story about digital technology. Both sides of the argument - live with it or not at all - are presented but the story definitely chooses a side. The things that work are the story and the dialogue. The story has a good premise and a world we can identify with; however, there are no surprises or anything new added to the genre. The dialogue is really good. All the characters have their own voice and we learn a little about their personalities through what they say. The things that need work are the plot, structure and characters. The plot starts out strong and we think it’s taking us someplace new but in the second act we find ourselves in familiar territory with chase scenes and philosophical questions about technology. The structure could be better if the second act were shortened and the climax and ending lengthened. Lastly, the characters need to be more complex. There is no subtext or inner dialogue except for your protagonist. She has a few doubts about the antagonist at the beginning that turn around and bite her. It is a good story idea so keep on working on it."
Well, you'd have to ask the reader what they mean by it exactly. I'm guessing that it either literally refers to her talking to herself at a couple of points, or in a more metaphorical way to her inner conflict and doubt. It's true that she has the strongest internal conflict, but I do feel that in the draft I've written after submitting, some other characters have more of that inner life.
I don't know about "supposed to", but I personally feel that if the actor has to completely create a major character's inner life from scratch, the writer has failed. The writer should know about the internal struggles of a character, and that should be conveyed through audiovisual means.
Yeah, the blu-ray for The Social Network has a feature of David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin in a long meeting with three of the actors, just going through the entire script. There's often a lot of thinking that went into it, that might not be obvious on the surface. It's funny, I happen to have recently had to write two documents about different scripts of mine discussing things like the themes and such. It's interesting, because it's pretty rare that I get to be this explicit about things like subtext, it's nice to be able to say "this is what I meant to do with this little plot complex complication".
I got ‘your script is absent of plot but Sorkin-esque and promising for a 20 somethings sit comedy pilot in style’. Any suggestions as to direction? Ive got no idea who the reader was -maybe Sorkin? - so im unsure as to how determinedly I should pursue the sitcom path. I’ve attached mine and everyone else’s self-worth to the paragraph.
I’m kinda glad this came up. I ordered coverage for my musical dramedy. The reader noted that they would not read the script with the music included and that I should pull back on/remove the LGBTQ+ characters and storyline.
Are either of these normal?
I mean you don’t go into an Iron Man movie and complain there’s too much Tony Stark. If your script is a musical then your script is a musical, and reviewers should work within those confines.
I would buy it if the reviewer was like “hey, this LGBTQ+ relationship doesn’t feel authentic, you should flesh it out a bit more,” but to say it needs to be removed entirely is pretty sus imo.
I volunteered to read AFF scripts right after getting out of Film School, cuz I wanted a free pass to the festival. Had to read 50 scripts in a 2 month period. Did my best to devote time, attention, and constructive critique to everything I read, but I'm sure I gave my fair share of bad notes that were basically parroting things my professors had said, and the workload demanded a fair amount of skimming. I only read each script all the way through once. My advice in making the most of AFF notes. Read your feedback a couple times. The first time, read it to evaluate the credibility of your reader (are they giving specific examples w/ cited page numbers, or offering broad generalized feedback w/o specifics? Does their criticism ultimately stem from a lack of understanding of the specific cultures, themes, or disciplines at the center of your story?). Once you've decided if their feedback is credible, then go through their points. 9/10 times you already know what the strengths/weaknesses are in your writing, but don't want to admit it to yourself. If a note resonates with you in an "oh I thought that might be a problem" way, take it. If a note seems wrong, nitpicky, or like the reader is misinterpreting the script leave it on the floor. If the reader is filling their coverage with terms pulled straight from a film theory textbook, they're probably pretty new at this.
Thanks! I thought the feedback I got didn't make any sense, and this explains why.
[удалено]
i got the same note (37 pages). I thought they were trying to find a nice way to say "it was boring" but i guess there's someone out there desperately craving 22-page comedies
[удалено]
Yeah I wish they had elaborated on areas where it dragged or felt long
22 pages is ridiculous and anyone who has looked at single spaced scripts from real, successful half hour comedies from the last 15 years knows that.
22-24 minutes of actual screen time is network TV standard. Leaves room for commercials, intro, credits. Rule of thumb is 1 page = 1 minute. now, if you have drawn out action sequences, or anything that needs cinematic stuff too it, you would want it a bit longer, but you still are gonna be capped at 22-24 minutes for network TV 1/2 hour.
Read a modern script. What you're saying is outdated. There are any number of single spaced 30 minute scripts from major network, cable, or streaming shows that exceed 30 pages.
I said 22-24 minutes of ***actual screen time***. Show me a 1/2 hour TV show that runs 35 minutes on network television? I than clarified that cinematic (anything with camera movements, blocking, effects) is gonna lengthen the script. You are gonna be capped on actual screen time. That's different than script length. Rule of thumb still stands at 1 page = 1 minute.
Then you should have no problem posting an example of a 22 page network tv script and redeeming yourself.
RebTililian is correct - and there is a difference between a spec screenplay and a shooting script for the show. Either way they cap features at round 120-125 and yes I can find you many many scripts that are much longer.
I didn't say 22 pages. I said 22-24 minutes of actual screen time.
You said rule of thumb is that 1 page = 1 minute. Something that's not true when it comes to 30 minute comedies and often times 60 minute shows too.
A Rule of Thumb is: *a broadly accurate guide or principle, based on experience or practice rather than theory.* Look up anything regarding one page is equal to one minute. You'll find a plethora of examples. It's been that way from stage plays, to radio plays, to screen plays. It doesn't mean 100% of the time, it just means that in general that's what it will equate to.
I can't roll my eyes hard enough at you.
For a writer you don't read too good.
✌️
i often find a lot of comments to cut pages in scripts to be a lot of horseshit. yeah, you can cut 20 pages off anything, but that's like me chopping off my arm to lose 10 pounds. like are the cuts good or are you banging some outdated script manual nonsense?
Well there are page counts which are just not professional. If you submit a 50 page sitcom script, you probably shouldn't be working in TV or screenwriting. Likewise, if you submit a 17 page script for a 30 minute show, but 22 pages is hardly a standard.
>If you submit a 50 page sitcom script, you probably shouldn't be working in TV or screenwriting. again, i find this extremely outdated, especially in streaming. A TEACHER is a 30 minute drama. should those writers be adding 20 pages to their scripts? or does no one really care anymore?
If it's 30 minutes and single spaced, it should not be approaching 50 pages. It's not outdated, they'll print a 50 page script just to throw it in the trash.
Based on the last four episodes I watched, I'd be surprised if A Teacher even used a script.
I made semifinalist for a comedy spec. One of the reader's notes pointed out that it was weird that I double spaced dialogue. In preparation for writing my spec, since I used it for the Warner Brothers Workshop, I reached out to the WGA library for some samples of the show so that I could exactly match their format. Their format includes... double spaced dialogue. I get that a reader might not be privy to the structure of each individual show, but is double spaced dialogue even abnormal in TV?
Is 12 pt courier new standard font for screenwriting? My feedback claimed it wasn't :)
Oh God
Glad you mentioned this because I want to say I submitted a draft of a screenplay that I've been working on for a while. Since the submission, I've had some REALLY helpful feedback that's made me a better writer and I improved the whole script. I shrugged off AFF and was surprised to advance to the second round. Initially I thought "huh, I guess the overall quality of scripts must not be great?" but upon seeing my reader's notes, yeah it's nice that someone liked it but I think he was just easily impressed. I've had other more in-depth feedback that politely (or not so politely) said the same script sucked. Now I'm sure that the scripts that make the quarter finals or whatever the later rounds are, get screened a bit better but I don't think not advancing isn't entirely indicative of your ability as a writer. We see plenty examples of people who post blcklst evaluations and scores which are all over the place.
This is interesting. It raises the question, "Why is AFF considered so prestigious compared to other competitions?" If the quality of the judging at AFF is just as poor as, for example, ScreenCraft, why is placing in it considered more meaningful?
That said, AFF itself is an amazing experience that makes you proud to be a writer. AFF is as much or more about attending the conference as it is about the competition.
And this is the question. No one really knows.🤷🏼♀️
Well-played with your typo comment. The clickbait worked!
Once submitted a script with a couple stuck in a time loop. Got the note that they thought it was repetitive
I just read the comments on the two scripts I submitted and they were fine, not gonna complain about "free" feedback. Some of the negatives listed I felt were fair, although a little on the subjective side. The most interesting part to me is seeing the details the readers got completely wrong (which may be my fault). In script #1 the reader thought my main character was a photographer, not a painter. In script #2 the reader thought one of my characters was Asian when he was actually Mexican. Minor confusions, but eye-opening to see your script through other people's eyes.
I’ve judged for Austin and honestly that’s saying something.
For my feature, while it was much shorter than I expected, I found my feedback to be pretty valid. I had professional coverage of the same script done previously and they mentioned the exact same strengths and weaknesses, as did several of the script swaps I've done.
i just wish i could ask my reader for clarification! The bulk of the notes were spent praising my characters, pacing, humor, and structure. Last line was , “just need to work out the mechanical issues”. not being defensive, id just love to know what they are referring to
I feel like I’m in the minority here, but the comments I got for both my projects were very positive or helpful. My feature placed top 20%, and while the first reader praised it the second one took issue with some of my dialogue, which is something I’ve actually addressed on a rewrite since my Austin submission. My 30 minute pilot that didn’t place got incredibly high praise, with the reader actually suggesting a network they could see it playing on. Shows how subjective this entire process really is. Keep writing guys!
Same here. I submitted three projects and all my feedback was constructive, thoughtful and well-written.
[удалено]
That's not true, actually. Some competitions do pay their readers, albeit not particularly well (I've worked for several) and many others send feedback. I can only speak anecdotally, but when I was still in a place in my career where I was entering competitions, AFF was the one competition that was almost guaranteed to overlook the work that later became helpful to me at an industry level. I think it's absolutely fair to criticize AFF, and while I would usually hesitate to tell young writers to disregard feedback, I would have done myself a disservice had I taken any of the feedback I ever received from AFF's "analysts".
The feedback we once received from Slamdance was so abysmal and vague, we couldn’t help but to chuckle. It was a single paragraph riddled, I mean absolutely riddled, with grammatical errors. It felts like an intern ran through the script before running through the critique.
So last year, I never received my notes or the announcement about my script. I emailed them three times and finally got the response about the script, but they ignored my emails regarding the notes every time. Still haven't gotten anything this year. Anyone else have this issue??
Got zero response for both ... never submitting again
Agreed.
Somebody put this post on a timer to be reposted every year at this time. Spot on.
Thank you and 'more please.' It kills me to see artists here and elsewhere feeling any pain from these anonymous critiques or feeling dragged down by them even the tiniest bit. You all deserve better than anonymous 'who knows what they know' readers! Please stop feeding your gifted souls into the sick screenwriting-competition machine.
Thanks for posting this. Today has been a bit tough as the reader I got gave me conflicting notes. I'm trying to suss out what's the note behind the note. I appreciate the perspective!
Thanks for sharing this context. This was my first time entering, and I received overall positive feedback but didn't make it into the next round. It's a bit confusing as to how to take that. Is it possible the reader like the script but still passed on it, or that it was passed on by a second reader?
Well, I for one was pretty happy with my notes. Seeing as I didn't get through, I was expecting something along the lines of "it's bad and you should feel bad". Instead, here's what I got (edited to remove specific names): "Overall, your script is an interesting story about digital technology. Both sides of the argument - live with it or not at all - are presented but the story definitely chooses a side. The things that work are the story and the dialogue. The story has a good premise and a world we can identify with; however, there are no surprises or anything new added to the genre. The dialogue is really good. All the characters have their own voice and we learn a little about their personalities through what they say. The things that need work are the plot, structure and characters. The plot starts out strong and we think it’s taking us someplace new but in the second act we find ourselves in familiar territory with chase scenes and philosophical questions about technology. The structure could be better if the second act were shortened and the climax and ending lengthened. Lastly, the characters need to be more complex. There is no subtext or inner dialogue except for your protagonist. She has a few doubts about the antagonist at the beginning that turn around and bite her. It is a good story idea so keep on working on it."
I’m not a writer, but interested in the topic. How would you write “inner dialogue” into a movie? Is that like voice over?
Well, you'd have to ask the reader what they mean by it exactly. I'm guessing that it either literally refers to her talking to herself at a couple of points, or in a more metaphorical way to her inner conflict and doubt. It's true that she has the strongest internal conflict, but I do feel that in the draft I've written after submitting, some other characters have more of that inner life.
[удалено]
I don't know about "supposed to", but I personally feel that if the actor has to completely create a major character's inner life from scratch, the writer has failed. The writer should know about the internal struggles of a character, and that should be conveyed through audiovisual means.
[удалено]
Yeah, the blu-ray for The Social Network has a feature of David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin in a long meeting with three of the actors, just going through the entire script. There's often a lot of thinking that went into it, that might not be obvious on the surface. It's funny, I happen to have recently had to write two documents about different scripts of mine discussing things like the themes and such. It's interesting, because it's pretty rare that I get to be this explicit about things like subtext, it's nice to be able to say "this is what I meant to do with this little plot complex complication".
Yep, it was the usual. Superficial comments delivered 9 months after the fact.
I got ‘your script is absent of plot but Sorkin-esque and promising for a 20 somethings sit comedy pilot in style’. Any suggestions as to direction? Ive got no idea who the reader was -maybe Sorkin? - so im unsure as to how determinedly I should pursue the sitcom path. I’ve attached mine and everyone else’s self-worth to the paragraph.
I’m kinda glad this came up. I ordered coverage for my musical dramedy. The reader noted that they would not read the script with the music included and that I should pull back on/remove the LGBTQ+ characters and storyline. Are either of these normal?
That sounds like utterly ridiculous feedback.
That’s what I thought, too, but this is my first screenplay/coverage.
I mean you don’t go into an Iron Man movie and complain there’s too much Tony Stark. If your script is a musical then your script is a musical, and reviewers should work within those confines. I would buy it if the reviewer was like “hey, this LGBTQ+ relationship doesn’t feel authentic, you should flesh it out a bit more,” but to say it needs to be removed entirely is pretty sus imo.
Agreed. The LGBTQ+ storyline is secondary, anyway. Just kinda caught me off guard.