Almost two and a half years now for the OWA's and they've yet to produce anything. At what point does it become reasonable to assume that there's no genuine opportunity there?
Also worth adding is that the Stage 32 OWA submission rules dictate that writers have to be participating in the VIP forum room or their script won't even be considered.
What the Writers Room offers is mostly encouragement. If that's what anyone is looking for, and they have the time to participate in the Zoom sessions, then it could be worthwhile. Otherwise I'd suggest spending one's money elsewhere.
Encouragement, direction, resources, and comradery, I'd say. There's a lot of value in that for some. As ever though, only ever spend money you would otherwise be willing to throw away. You can always go to the library and borrow a lot of great books that cover the topics of screenwriting, business networking, and art.
Right from the start, my first thoughts on S32 were that it was clearly a financial leveraging platform aimed at new writers vs a sincere space to share and promote.
Unlike this one.
I understand, and have no problem with the fact that CJ has friendships and connections with S32 personnel, but one only has to observe the amount of dollar signs on every page of S32 to see straight through it.
The S32 pitch sessions are quite popular, with about ten thousand a year being sold. A couple of success stories from them over the last half dozen years. They seem like a better value than the consultations which run about 4.5 to 9 times more expensive but without much return to show for them. One pitch per month would be approximately the cost of the monthly Writers Room subscription. With the OWA's still having produced no material return for any writer, pitching would probably be a slightly better value for the money.
It seems more like advice for producers pitching to investors rather than writers pitching to producers. And the advice to have a treatment I'm pretty sure is wrong. If a producer isn't interested in reading the script after hearing the logline and synopsis, then they're not going to be interested in reading a treatment.
It's bizarre, and I'm honestly lost on what to think.
Either the article has been written in error, perhaps adapted for one aimed at producers.
Or it's just plain wrong.
Or it's on the money, and what's expected from screenwriters based on the author's views is nothing short of terrifying.
It just doesn't make sense to me though. The article says you should know the budget needs and where the money's coming from. If you are in a position to know where the money is coming from, why the hell would you be pitching to a studio exec? You would be pitching to an investor, as a producer, and then trying to secure an MG from studios that distribute, again as a producer.
I cannot get my head around it. A pitchdeck and twenty page treatment for every spec script? At the level where you are just trying to get read?
It reads like fanfiction. I have to be missing something major or have skipped timelines.
I've only partially read the post, but it seems like it's ultimately another commercial for Stage 32, preceded by a long article with tips ranging from obvious to generic to helpful, all written to overwhelm and scare new or younger screenwriters.
Perhaps so. The more times I read it, the less it makes sense.
"If I’m intrigued by your query, the next thing I expect to see is your pitch deck."
"A pitch deck is essential because it lets me quickly assess the potential of your project."
"If I’m interested in your pitch deck, the next step is typically reviewing your treatment."
"You’ve made it this far and I’m still interested! I want to read the script or screenplay. This is the ultimate test. It doesn’t matter how great your pitch or treatment is—if the script doesn’t deliver, the project won’t move forward."
"If you have key team members attached (director, writer, producer), include their bios. I want to know who I’ll be working with and why they’re the right fit for the project."
"If the project requires significant funding, it’s essential to have a high-level budget in mind. Be prepared to discuss how you plan to raise money or secure distribution."
In what context is this? I don't get it it. It's like a hodgepodge of different scenarios and business relationships. Why would someone who's so busy read a synopsis, pitchdeck, treatment, AND a script? Why can't a project move forward if a script isn't quite there for the industry member? Why would someone with a producer/director attached be going this route - and be presenting it as a writer? Since when has a pitch deck been essential?
It seems all this peripheral nonsense (pitch-decks, look-books, bibles, etc.) has grown in the past ten years. It's like people are looking for any reason than to actually read your script.
I don't know any producers who expect this stuff. A logline and a script is enough for most. A synopsis is a nice addition. None of them would see a pitch deck as essential or expect to see a treatment. None of them would care that much about how your room looked, what you were wearing a meeting, or what your posture/handshake is like. They just want to see good scripts and work with nice people.
I agree with you guys about the whole pitch deck/treatment nonsense. A logline and synopsis should suffice and THAN the script if the producer is interested. It all just seems like so much unnecssary work.
Stage 32 don't offer pitch deck creation services. They do offer a pitch deck webinar though.
I am seeing them touted more and more, and I appreciate that industry members are being bombarded more and more. Anything that can close that gap between cold contact and a read is a good thing, but to call them essential? I really hope that's not the case.
The only pitch deck type thing I think is a genuine benefit would be a synopsis. I think those are essential. I also think ongoing networking is important.
I do think more screenwriters need to think like producers, but that's easier said than done without experience.
I got an email September 30 from ISA about a writing gig for a prod co looking for fairy tale like scripts. Since I'd written a short about a modern take on Cinderella and the deadline is December 29 I decided I had time to lengthen it, then do a bunch of rewrites until I felt comfortable sending it in. It was only then I found out I would have to upgrade my basic membership in order to be accepted for consideration. So $100 later, am warned that the prod co might not read every script and may have already found what they wanted as it's best to enter early. Already feeling buyers regret I compounded it and threw away $79.50 on an entry into the Stage32 Family comp. Now I'm reading bad things about Stage 32. The saying is "live and learn" it's not true though, as I can testify.
Elizabeth, the OWAs are requests for submissions of a certain script type made by industry members / prodcos. Stage 32 Writers' Room members can submit, and then Stage 32 filters out what they want to pass on. They aren't what the industry typically calls Open Writing Assignments (OWAs), which caused some confusion. Sadly, nothing much has come of the project yet.
I've been a paid member of ISA for over three years. It's a mixed bag, but it's worth it to me. ISA did a major upgrade in 2023, and I like how it's organized—my biography, scripts, awards, etc. Very pleasing to the eye.
As for their Writing Gigs, I currently have a script "In Consideration" for a comedy gig, which is always fun to see! I've had scripts "In Consideration" a few times before, only for the "Status" to eventually change to "Not Selected." Still, it's encouraging and a way for me to get eyeballs on my scripts. I usually submit to 6-12 gigs per year. The bad thing is, it can take months for status updates.
For your $100, you also get four free entries into contests (one every three months). Unfortunately for me this year, one of the free entries was for a genre-specific contest in a genre I don't write. Other times, the free entry has been for a competition I'm not overly interested in entering. Usually there's a choice between two contests, which is nice. If you enter other contests, sometimes there's a discount for ISAConnect members if you enter via their platform, so be sure to check.
ISA now has a feature where you can share your scripts from their platform, and all shares, views and requests are tracked in "My Submissions." I haven't used it yet, but I think it's a great feature.
ISA offers some free Zoom webinars throughout the year. I've attended a few. They also sponsor Third-Thursday meetings in Boston, Portland, New Orleans and Madison. Madison, WI is a two-hour drive from my house. Thanks to those monthly meetings, I now have a wonderful screenwriting group. A couple of the ISA employees live in Wisconsin and occasionally one will attend a meeting and answer questions about their platform.
If after this year you don't wish to renew your membership, be sure to cancel it before it automatically renews. I put a reminder on my phone.
I haven't given any money to Stage 32 for several years after having a bad experience with them.
Thank you CJ and Andrea for your helpful info. So it sounds like the OWA's on Stage 32 and the paid writing gigs on ISA operate the same way. Both are gate keepers for the platforms.
It's nice to know that you, Andrea, have had positive interactions with ISA. You are always upbeat and supportive. I do so hope that your "in consideration" script finds a home this time!
And, CJ, I want to thank you for SR, a lovely site that even I can navigate. I find other platforms too confusing. Congratulations on your latest movie.
The OWA's on S32 are significantly different from the Gigs on ISA. With the ISA Gigs one submits directly to the party who has submitted the request for scripts. With the OWA's one submits to S32 and they choose a small number of scripts, usually about four, to be submitted to the party requesting scripts. The chances of a script making it through the OWA process and getting submitted to a producer are extremely low. Then there is the issue of successful outcomes. The ISA has had a small number of successes through their Gigs. The OWA's have, after almost three years produced no material benefit for any writer participating in the program.
It's interesting to learn the differences. To be fair, I don't think I've heard a bad word about ISA from writers.
Reading through the terms on OWA submissions, I might be screwed anyway. They state that there can't be any typos or formatting issues. With my dyslexia and with formatting being very subjective in some areas, I might be being passed on over just that.
There’s a major financial difference between paying $39/month to be in Stage 32’s Writer’s Room (required for access to the OWAs) and $100/year ($8.33/month) for access to ISA’s Writing Gigs (and other benefits). I think ISA’s annual membership fee is quite reasonable. (You can also choose to pay $10/month for ISA if you don’t want to commit to the year-long membership.)
Richard makes a good point about looking at successful outcomes. ISA has had a few, Stage 32... not so much. During 2024, I've had three different scripts "In Consideration" for an ISA Writing Gig. I'm not delusional, but it's something positive.
When asked about it during one of our Third-Thursday meetings, an ISA employee said they actually do vet submitted scripts before forwarding them to the requesting party, mainly because so many writers submit scripts that don't fit the guidelines of the gig. It sounds like it's been a real problem; I see it as a great way to tarnish your reputation with ISA. Highly unprofessional and it reeks of desperation.
Info here: https://www.stage32.com/writers-room
Also worth adding is that the Stage 32 OWA submission rules dictate that writers have to be participating in the VIP forum room or their script won't even be considered.
What the Writers Room offers is mostly encouragement. If that's what anyone is looking for, and they have the time to participate in the Zoom sessions, then it could be worthwhile. Otherwise I'd suggest spending one's money elsewhere.
Thanks for the info, will look into this when I can.
Encouragement, direction, resources, and comradery, I'd say. There's a lot of value in that for some. As ever though, only ever spend money you would otherwise be willing to throw away. You can always go to the library and borrow a lot of great books that cover the topics of screenwriting, business networking, and art.
"... based on the remote possibility that one of them might lead to a script getting produced."
This is the primary sales pitch of every screenwriting competition, and the implied selling point of coverage 'services' and script consultants.
Right from the start, my first thoughts on S32 were that it was clearly a financial leveraging platform aimed at new writers vs a sincere space to share and promote.
Unlike this one.
I understand, and have no problem with the fact that CJ has friendships and connections with S32 personnel, but one only has to observe the amount of dollar signs on every page of S32 to see straight through it.
WOW. What a read.
@Jay.
Yeah, I saw that when I was viewing where you can pitch people. Way too expensive, and certainly not worth it when I have this site and inkTip.
The S32 pitch sessions are quite popular, with about ten thousand a year being sold. A couple of success stories from them over the last half dozen years. They seem like a better value than the consultations which run about 4.5 to 9 times more expensive but without much return to show for them. One pitch per month would be approximately the cost of the monthly Writers Room subscription. With the OWA's still having produced no material return for any writer, pitching would probably be a slightly better value for the money.
Am I missing something about this blog post?
https://www.stage32.com/blog/november-write-club-week-4-congratulations-...
It seems insane.
It seems more like advice for producers pitching to investors rather than writers pitching to producers. And the advice to have a treatment I'm pretty sure is wrong. If a producer isn't interested in reading the script after hearing the logline and synopsis, then they're not going to be interested in reading a treatment.
It's bizarre, and I'm honestly lost on what to think.
Either the article has been written in error, perhaps adapted for one aimed at producers.
Or it's just plain wrong.
Or it's on the money, and what's expected from screenwriters based on the author's views is nothing short of terrifying.
It just doesn't make sense to me though. The article says you should know the budget needs and where the money's coming from. If you are in a position to know where the money is coming from, why the hell would you be pitching to a studio exec? You would be pitching to an investor, as a producer, and then trying to secure an MG from studios that distribute, again as a producer.
I cannot get my head around it. A pitchdeck and twenty page treatment for every spec script? At the level where you are just trying to get read?
It reads like fanfiction. I have to be missing something major or have skipped timelines.
I've only partially read the post, but it seems like it's ultimately another commercial for Stage 32, preceded by a long article with tips ranging from obvious to generic to helpful, all written to overwhelm and scare new or younger screenwriters.
Perhaps so. The more times I read it, the less it makes sense.
"If I’m intrigued by your query, the next thing I expect to see is your pitch deck."
"A pitch deck is essential because it lets me quickly assess the potential of your project."
"If I’m interested in your pitch deck, the next step is typically reviewing your treatment."
"You’ve made it this far and I’m still interested! I want to read the script or screenplay. This is the ultimate test. It doesn’t matter how great your pitch or treatment is—if the script doesn’t deliver, the project won’t move forward."
"If you have key team members attached (director, writer, producer), include their bios. I want to know who I’ll be working with and why they’re the right fit for the project."
"If the project requires significant funding, it’s essential to have a high-level budget in mind. Be prepared to discuss how you plan to raise money or secure distribution."
In what context is this? I don't get it it. It's like a hodgepodge of different scenarios and business relationships. Why would someone who's so busy read a synopsis, pitchdeck, treatment, AND a script? Why can't a project move forward if a script isn't quite there for the industry member? Why would someone with a producer/director attached be going this route - and be presenting it as a writer? Since when has a pitch deck been essential?
It seems all this peripheral nonsense (pitch-decks, look-books, bibles, etc.) has grown in the past ten years. It's like people are looking for any reason than to actually read your script.
I don't know any producers who expect this stuff. A logline and a script is enough for most. A synopsis is a nice addition. None of them would see a pitch deck as essential or expect to see a treatment. None of them would care that much about how your room looked, what you were wearing a meeting, or what your posture/handshake is like. They just want to see good scripts and work with nice people.
Pitch decks are being pushed as essential by 'services' that create pitch decks for money.
Screenwriting has become all about scams.
I agree with you guys about the whole pitch deck/treatment nonsense. A logline and synopsis should suffice and THAN the script if the producer is interested. It all just seems like so much unnecssary work.
Here's how we did it back in the day:
All these leeching middle men offer nothing of value to anyone other than themselves.
Stage 32 don't offer pitch deck creation services. They do offer a pitch deck webinar though.
I am seeing them touted more and more, and I appreciate that industry members are being bombarded more and more. Anything that can close that gap between cold contact and a read is a good thing, but to call them essential? I really hope that's not the case.
@Drongo
That's how it should be. None of this pitch deck nonsense
The only pitch deck type thing I think is a genuine benefit would be a synopsis. I think those are essential. I also think ongoing networking is important.
I do think more screenwriters need to think like producers, but that's easier said than done without experience.
The S32 blog post for "successes" in the month of November has now arrived. Once again, no material benefit for any OWA participant.
I got an email September 30 from ISA about a writing gig for a prod co looking for fairy tale like scripts. Since I'd written a short about a modern take on Cinderella and the deadline is December 29 I decided I had time to lengthen it, then do a bunch of rewrites until I felt comfortable sending it in. It was only then I found out I would have to upgrade my basic membership in order to be accepted for consideration. So $100 later, am warned that the prod co might not read every script and may have already found what they wanted as it's best to enter early. Already feeling buyers regret I compounded it and threw away $79.50 on an entry into the Stage32 Family comp. Now I'm reading bad things about Stage 32. The saying is "live and learn" it's not true though, as I can testify.
btw, what's an OWA?
I got another pass from the OWAs. Oh well.
Elizabeth, the OWAs are requests for submissions of a certain script type made by industry members / prodcos. Stage 32 Writers' Room members can submit, and then Stage 32 filters out what they want to pass on. They aren't what the industry typically calls Open Writing Assignments (OWAs), which caused some confusion. Sadly, nothing much has come of the project yet.
I don't know much about ISA.
Elizabeth,
I've been a paid member of ISA for over three years. It's a mixed bag, but it's worth it to me. ISA did a major upgrade in 2023, and I like how it's organized—my biography, scripts, awards, etc. Very pleasing to the eye.
As for their Writing Gigs, I currently have a script "In Consideration" for a comedy gig, which is always fun to see! I've had scripts "In Consideration" a few times before, only for the "Status" to eventually change to "Not Selected." Still, it's encouraging and a way for me to get eyeballs on my scripts. I usually submit to 6-12 gigs per year. The bad thing is, it can take months for status updates.
For your $100, you also get four free entries into contests (one every three months). Unfortunately for me this year, one of the free entries was for a genre-specific contest in a genre I don't write. Other times, the free entry has been for a competition I'm not overly interested in entering. Usually there's a choice between two contests, which is nice. If you enter other contests, sometimes there's a discount for ISAConnect members if you enter via their platform, so be sure to check.
ISA now has a feature where you can share your scripts from their platform, and all shares, views and requests are tracked in "My Submissions." I haven't used it yet, but I think it's a great feature.
ISA offers some free Zoom webinars throughout the year. I've attended a few. They also sponsor Third-Thursday meetings in Boston, Portland, New Orleans and Madison. Madison, WI is a two-hour drive from my house. Thanks to those monthly meetings, I now have a wonderful screenwriting group. A couple of the ISA employees live in Wisconsin and occasionally one will attend a meeting and answer questions about their platform.
If after this year you don't wish to renew your membership, be sure to cancel it before it automatically renews. I put a reminder on my phone.
I haven't given any money to Stage 32 for several years after having a bad experience with them.
Thank you CJ and Andrea for your helpful info. So it sounds like the OWA's on Stage 32 and the paid writing gigs on ISA operate the same way. Both are gate keepers for the platforms.
It's nice to know that you, Andrea, have had positive interactions with ISA. You are always upbeat and supportive. I do so hope that your "in consideration" script finds a home this time!
And, CJ, I want to thank you for SR, a lovely site that even I can navigate. I find other platforms too confusing. Congratulations on your latest movie.
All the best to everyone posting on this forum.
Elizabeth
The OWA's on S32 are significantly different from the Gigs on ISA. With the ISA Gigs one submits directly to the party who has submitted the request for scripts. With the OWA's one submits to S32 and they choose a small number of scripts, usually about four, to be submitted to the party requesting scripts. The chances of a script making it through the OWA process and getting submitted to a producer are extremely low. Then there is the issue of successful outcomes. The ISA has had a small number of successes through their Gigs. The OWA's have, after almost three years produced no material benefit for any writer participating in the program.
It's interesting to learn the differences. To be fair, I don't think I've heard a bad word about ISA from writers.
Reading through the terms on OWA submissions, I might be screwed anyway. They state that there can't be any typos or formatting issues. With my dyslexia and with formatting being very subjective in some areas, I might be being passed on over just that.
There’s a major financial difference between paying $39/month to be in Stage 32’s Writer’s Room (required for access to the OWAs) and $100/year ($8.33/month) for access to ISA’s Writing Gigs (and other benefits). I think ISA’s annual membership fee is quite reasonable. (You can also choose to pay $10/month for ISA if you don’t want to commit to the year-long membership.)
Richard makes a good point about looking at successful outcomes. ISA has had a few, Stage 32... not so much. During 2024, I've had three different scripts "In Consideration" for an ISA Writing Gig. I'm not delusional, but it's something positive.
When asked about it during one of our Third-Thursday meetings, an ISA employee said they actually do vet submitted scripts before forwarding them to the requesting party, mainly because so many writers submit scripts that don't fit the guidelines of the gig. It sounds like it's been a real problem; I see it as a great way to tarnish your reputation with ISA. Highly unprofessional and it reeks of desperation.
Pages