Great New Screenwriting Site

The Writers' Building

This is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping aspiring screenwriters. You get a private office with your own discussion board, several active screenwriting workshops, great feedback on your work and a chance to connect with industry pros.

www.thewritersbuilding.org

Click on the front door to step inside.

You don't seem to have alot of industry pros signed up on your site - I counted 5 -three of them are script consultants.

That's not really a lot of industry pros to hook up with for the 25 bucks.

You obviously have quite the wish list, based on the pros who's name you list who are not members.

Please post here again once Spielberg, Richard Lovett, Jim Wiatt and Scorcese come on board.

The site just opened friday.

The workshops alone are well work 25 bucks for a one year membership.

actually, you're competing against a few sites run by seasoned pros that don't charge or try to sell anything for their personal advice and workshops. have you checked them out?

those pro lists are impressive. not many green dots, but impressive lists

Well the quality or content of the workshops is hard to evaluate considering you need to be a member to get any info about them.

I'd be very curious to know exactly who designed and is running these workshops. What are their credentials? Experience? Credits?

I hope no offense is taken at this statement - but the fact is just because someone takes McKee's seminars does not mean they are qualified to TEACH a writing workshop. A bad workshop is not necessarily better than no workshop at all.

Your ambitions may be laudable - but with only 5 pros signed up so far - you essentially are offering members a nicely designed peer review site. With all the established, free peer review sites already out there, I can't imagine why anyone would want to pay for peer reviews. And I am far from convinced that you will get the volume (or calibre) of pros you will require in order to service members who want professional feedback.

Even Coppola and Kevin Spacey couldn't get Spielberg and Scorcese to sign on to give professional story notes on Zoetroe and Triggerstreet. What makes you think they'll do it for you?

Re: websites

www.twoadverbs.com workshops scripts (in a chatroom fourm) and log lines and does lots of other stuff (like holds free workshops in the LA area) and all are captained by an industry insider. The monthly "log line lottery" even gives away free industry coverage to the winner, and it's all FREE of charge. No monthly fees or nothing. It's all done in the spirit of helping writers.

Re: websites

so you pay $25 to join a website then you get to take advantage of free workshops in la?

sorry. as of yet the only thing the site has going for it is a long list of people who are succesful.

Re: websites

Why do we have two threads back to back, one saying it is a fantastic new site and the other saying it is a great new site?

Maybe I'm just easily confused.

Re: websites

so - i took another look at the agent list on this site. this is nothing but a list of some of the biggest agents in town. what does this have to do with this site? is someone suggesting steve rabineau or nick reed or ed limato will someday take part in evaluating scripts posted on this site? this is dubious at best. these people turn huge deals with the best talent every day. why would they take the time. does the site attempt to explain this?

i mean, the last i heard steve rabineau left a gig as head of lit at icm to run endeavor. do you really think he would take part in evaluating scripts posted on this site? his desk has stacks of scripts written by his own clients on it.

i'm afraid posting such a list does not mean these agents have, or would ever consider having, anything to do with this site. in fact, i can envision them asking to have their names removed because of the implicated association.

considering it costs 25 bucks to join, the use of such a list, and the implication that you will have access to these people for the money paid, is suspect (at best)


zilla

Re: websites

pls post on here again once you know the difference between who's and whose.

Re: websites

Gee BRough,

Nice to see you don't let the Christmas spirit get in the way of your douchebagness.

so - took yet another look at the pro lists on this site. many of the bios are just wrong - i mean, like the kind of bio you might get if you hired some shlub to look stuff up on the web and compile a few sentences about them. this does not suggest an intimate relationship with these people.

in fact, logic would suggest two things: a) an intimate relationship with all these industry pros is not possibe and b) if such a relationship existed the opening of this site would be huge news - like all over the media (when kevin spacy launched triggerstreet it was reported on all industry sites and many papers like usa today - also was covered on tv). such a media storm has not taken place with this site - makes one wonder. really, these people are some of the best public relations gurus in the biz. they would have no problem getting the word out. this begs the question: why isn't the word out? why aren't these agents, managers, etc trumpeting their association with this site?


zilla

Re: websites

Say Simon, you mustn't be the same guy who told someone a few posts back to run a spell check on their script, having inferred it could be in "big trouble" because they spelt one word incorrectly and dropped the 'k' from knew....

Yes, the website's shortcomings are plain to see, but at least the few "pros" who frequent it go by their full names.

Re: websites

BRough -

Again you misquote and misinterpret me. I never said or implied that someone would be in big trouble because of 1 spelling error in a script - or two or three. But I do think that sloppiness is noticed and that it is disrespectful to those you are submitting to, if you don't bother to submit a script that is as error free as possible.

Personally, I proof the crap out of my work (I repeat my work as in my scripts, manuscripts etc.) before showing it. Admittedly I don't give the same due diligence to my message board postings.

And I still say it is highly unlikely that the vast, vast majority of the professionals listed on that site will ever join and the few pros that do join will have neither the time nor inclination to review the volume of scripts that will be seeking pro reviews. Therefore, it is essentially a peer review site that charges a fee.

I don't think that posting under one's full name necessarily leads to something superior to those posting under psuedonyms. People using their real names tend to be more diplomatic and polite, but that can at times preclude them from being truly honest. Posting annonymously can for some at least, lead to more honest and real communication.

Re: websites

"People using their real names tend to be more diplomatic and polite, but that can at times preclude them from being truly honest. Posting anonymously can for some at least, lead to more honest and real communication." simon says

What a prickly web we weave, when we first try to tell the truth.

vig

they must put something in the water.

Again you misquote and misinterpret me. I never said or implied that someone would be in big trouble because of 1 spelling error in a script - or two or three

Click to expand...

Now, who is misinterpreting whom (and not for the first time)?

You began your reply to this guy, "Mac - first of all be sure to run a spellcheck on your script - if you've got the same kind of errors in your script [2 typos] as you do in your post you are going to be in big trouble."

I didn't mean to dampen the Christmas spirit, but, unless you are prepared to explain why you should be held to a lower standard than your 'pupils', try not to be such a hypocrite.

Perhaps regulars here know who you are, I don't. Fact is, nothing you have said precludes the possibility that you are the "pro" you claim to be (it's quite possible that your scripts are sent out between colourful agency cardstock and with an agency title page and that you haven't had to give a monkey's about its format for many a year.) However, for a professional -- no doubt, busy -- writer giving over his time to offer altruistic input, anonymous or not you seem far too focused on rubbishing contrasting points of view (no matter how petty the subject or valid the advice) and trying to convince the various incarnations of your sparring partner that the earth is round....

There is no reason to reiterate your insight into this website. I'm not frustrating your opposition to it. Spielberg will be a no-show, it's self-evident.

No reply required. I hadn't planned on extending this back-and-forth into 2005. I must have strayed into here with a hangover new year's morning. (Quite a lapse, I only signed on to goolge Sophie Monk.)