Update on the S32 OWA's.

What's concerning me the most is that the terms state that those chosen must be active Writer's Room participants, but they regularly aren't. Some of us are going the extra mile to make sure we participate only for it to be a bait and switch.

I was considering paying for a 10 page read on S32, but when I dig into some of the professionals they have listed (pages upon pages), sure, some can actually help with development/funding/whatever but many are writers themselves or entry level as well. Not to say they don't have relationships with folks. But it's just that hubby and I work hard for our money and falling for all of S32 can get expensive. Better off hitting the slot macines ;) 

I'd question the value in a ten-page read anyway. The problem with script feedback is that it isn't craft feedback. It's a bit like wanting to be an interior designer and having someone else come in and finish the room. You only now know how to fix that room. You haven't learned anything fundamental about layout, proportions, texture selection, colour theory, etc, that you can then apply elsewhere - and that's assuming the person advising knows more than you.

The real value in S32, in my opinion, is the education section.

So, a comment from someone in the screenwriting lounge caused me a little concern about favouritism. They exclaimed that a member has had a script become a finalist in an OWA something like twenty times. Therefore, I decided to take a look at some of the data available. Most of it is very good news, but some of it looks bad.

I took 60 OWA finalist results announced over the past six months.

I do not have data for who entered which OWAs, therefore some may have entered 1 time while others entered 60 times. The brief of each OWA also impacts the likelihood someone has material applicable to enter too.

242 scripts from 166 writers were listed as finalists.

This I applaud. That’s 166 writers who have received some form of exposure and acclaim over the past six months. That’s pretty much a writer a day. Compared to a competition win, that’s a much better spread, plus they are being recommended directly to industry members inline with their needs.

92 Writers were finalists once

32 Writers were finalists twice

17 Writers were finalists three times

9 Writers were finalists four times

8 Writers were finalists five times

1 Writer was a finalist six times

2 Writers were finalists seven times

1 Writer was a finalist eight times

0 Writers were finalists nine times

1 Writer was a finalist ten times

3 Writers were finalists eleven times

The most times a writer was a finalist was 11 times in 60 OWAs over six months.

This seems like a reasonable distribution to me. Eleven times sounds like a lot, but some of these writers will have been submitting multiple scripts that fit the spec of the OWA in question.

169 Scripts were finalists once

48 Scripts were finalists twice

16 Scripts were finalists three times

6 Scripts were finalists four times

3 Scripts were finalists five times

The most times a script was a finalist was 5 times in 60 OWAs over six months.

This is, again, good, even better than the above. I see no issue with favouritism here. I can certainly see how a few scripts are going to be seen as the best within certain genres and niches.

Out of the 25 writers who have been finalists 4 or more times, only 5 have ever posted in the Writer’s Room. Only nine have ever posted on Stage 32 at all. Over 80% of the top OWA finalists in the past six months have not been active in the Writer’s Room. Those who did participate typically only posted about their finalist status.

This really irks me. All OWAs clearly state the following rule.

“1) Submissions for Writers' Room members are always FREE but you must be an active Writers' Room member to be considered.”

Either the wording/definition is wrong, or this is not being applied.

Most of these writers already have careers and are overwhelmingly based in LA. Some are development execs. Some are readers. Some have done well in competitions. Very few are complete unknowns and/or new writers.

This make sense to me. Those who write professionally and/or work in the business are going to know what tends to get through readers. The vast majority of those writers are going to be in LA.

To conclude, I cannot find any bias in the results. I now know that these OWAs are legit and unbiased, with a fair variation of material being suggested by a variety of writers, the most common of whom have good credentials.

As to why they are not netting success stories yet, I don’t know. As I suggested before, that could be due to the industry members not being serious, to poor selection by the readers, to the process of seeing a success story come into fruition taking a long time.

It just feels that, much like competitions, the process of selection bodes very well for a certain type of writer, but does not seem to align well with industry members.

I honestly believe that Stage 32 is doing what it can, it's just that there's some disconnect somewhere. This was brought up by a producer who says there needs to be more feedback on why industry members are passing, so perhaps some course correction can take place. Perhaps that's happening behind the scenes.

But yes, potentially 500 scripts a year for three years, with the intent to give people specifically what they want, with no talk of success stories is concerning, not because some sort of scam is taking place, in my opinion, but because alignment isn't happening.

I'm highly suspicious of sites like Stage 32, but even removing any accusations of inappropriateness, most of these sites can't do much to meaningfully help screenwriters in the way many think they will.

I agree that they can't help in the way people think they will, put a lot of that is because people's expectations are way too high. I was recently asked by a couple of producers to take a look at a script for a potential rewrite and immediately recognised the writer's name. They are a Stage 32 prodigee. I think they optioned the script through their pitching services. Super low budget, but a start non-the-less.

CJ,

thanks for doing that research. It helps a lot to see stats broken down like that.

doug

All brilliant points. Guess what, one of my scripts was selected on the OWA submission. I literally got the email after just reading through this tread. Also fyi, my Writer's Room membership had lapsed. I did just renew it. But I thought that was funny as that was something that was being mentioned here. Anyhow, I'm assuming that the selection just means that the Stage32 people felt compelled ot read and enjoyed the script, now to passed to the professional who posted the mandate? 

Congrats, Cannon. In the email they sent to you, it should mention that they are passing your script onto named industry members. Then it's a waiting game. 

The latest OWAs have taken an interesting change. Quite a few of them are now specifying WGA writers only.

Thanks, guys! Yup like other mandates you submit to, query, or put in a bottle and huck it into the ocean... a waiting game. Still a more satisfying career than many other choices! But that's a topic for another lounge ;)

PS forgive my typos in my earlier comment... don't have an excuse, just not paying attention. But how embarrassing! 

Fingers crossed, Cannon.

Cannon, I wouldn't worry about typos on a forum. Plumber's taps always leak and all that. My greatest fear is being asking me to write by hand, which happens when they want me to sign one of my books. All the skeletons come out then. Thankfully, my handwriting is so bad it's hard to make out all the errors. 

Cannon, my ex-neighbor owned a roofing company, but he never installed gutters on his own house, so it constantly had a flooded basement. A few typos will be okay. :)

Congrats Cannon! I submitted a few scripts myself. Hoping for the best!

I've given up with them. Everything I submit gets a pass. There's no point in hoping for success with readers who don't align with your material. Same reason I quit competitions and the Black List. I don't need that negativity in my life. I'm sure something will come of it eventually though, just not for me.

Richard, in reading the blog they mentioned 2-3 stage32 writer's who have scripts getting developed with people they met through or who work at stage32 and they listed people who have had meetings via contests. What other successes are you hoping to see?

thanks

doug 

For what it's worth, the first success story they list is Gary A. Piazza and Dig Me No Grave. That script was actually found on Script Revolution LOL.

Richard,

oh, I totally get it. Sorry, it was a genuine question. I'm just learning as I go.

coming from music and novels there are a million sites with empty promises, so I was happy they at least had some positive things happening...though, it sounds like their biggest owes it's credit here per CJ.

Doug 

The reason I doubt the validity of these is as follows. Scriptrevolution. There is an entire marketplace full of screenplays. But industry executives are only interested in screenplays written by people that pay money.

Fishy? Or am I just cynical.

Craig, totally hear that, but I worked in radio and we got 200-300 new songs each week from major labels plus an endless supply from indie/local bands, and typically favored those that were pushed with promo or materials...yes, there's an endless supply of scripts, so why not read the ones they get paid to read first?

doug 

Hi Doug,

Well, they are looking for quality raw material to turn into films. Yet, it appears now of these screenplays are getting sold. So rather than search for what they want, based on genre, budget and style, they are reading what is being sent with money.  This places the focus on the payment not the work.

That smacks of fraud.

99.9999 of people haven't heard of Script Revolution. It's almost entirely word of mouth that people learn about it. I paid a top film PR person to try and help promoted it and none of the major outlets would carry the story. I've even had people I've connected with industry members for interviews avoid mentioning the site name during the interview and effectively lie about how they connected.

It might change for the better one day, I'd definitely shout you out if in their place and I think some people just want to seem like they "did it" on their own and not look like they needed the help of a website. so it may be that they would have avoided saying any website, even the blacklist.