Cool Script Writing Site

It sounds fishy to me. It seems like the creator of the site is using the creative abilities and talent of others to create scripts s/he can sell. Sure it might be fun to add your own little tweak to it, but it doesn't get you anywhere, or anything.

Not only that, but I'm not sure how well it's going to work out. Imagine a hundred writers working on the same script. A hundred different voices, ideas, writing styles, all mushed together in one script. Hmmm.

I could imagine it being hard enough working with a writing partner.

Thanks for taking the time and posting the link, although I'm not sure I'll be taking part.

I have my own ideas that in time I hope to get full credit for.

Steph

Sounds like a Sisyphean nightmare. What's to stop someone changing /deleting all your hard work and who gets to decide what's in the best creative interests for the project anyway?

My biggest gripe with Hollywood is too many cooks spoiling the broth but this sounds like too many cooks completely evaporating the broth and leaving a charred, indestructable crust of god-knows-what fused to the pan.

"For each purchased script, Wikiscripts will receive 30-50% of the purchase price to cover production costs and fund additional Decentralized Mediasubstantial edits projects. The remaining 50-70% will be distributed pro rata to those registered users who make substantial edits to the purchased scripts."

I think I have a headache. No offence, awrigh01, if you want to give it a shot more power to you sir, but IMO, "Definitely a package you don't want to open or touch."

After reading the fine print, it seems more and more like a scam.

The purchase price for each script is individually negotiated. For each purchased script, Wikiscripts will receive 30-50% of the purchase price to cover production costs and fund additional Decentralized Media projects. The remaining 50-70% will be distributed pro rata to those registered users who make substantial edits to the purchased scripts.

Say a script sells for $300,000, if Wikiscripts takes 50%, which they will regardless of what it says, that only gives $150,000 to be divided among the writers. Say there are 30 writers who share the credit. Each writer would only get $5,000. That's if it isn't a scam. What's to keep them from saying there were a thousand writers working on the script. It all works out great for them, they get half the profit just for doing nothing and we'll be lucky if we get a measely ten dollars in the mail.

And I second what clockwork9 said. I don't know how I'd feel if I spent all my time editing a script then have someone else come in and change everything I did.

Like I said, this doesn't get you anywhere or anything.

This should be on the "beware of scams" list.

Steph

Uhm, I can't seem to find any of the 'scripts in production', even on IMDb. Would you mind clarifying, and perhaps providing more insight on each project (such as director, company, ect.) Why is each script copyrighted by Scott Fener as well? So he wrote all of those? Did he register them with the WGA? I can't find his name on IMDb, nor the scripts. And why are you stealing the idea from Wikipedia?

It seems like a reasonable idea for hobbiests.

I don't understand the references to 'purchase price' . This can NEVER result in a script sale.

Why not? According to the Terms of use, materials you submit are licensed to the 'Creative Commons' Deed: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

This means that filmmakers are free to copy,distribute, display and perform the work. Free. They don't have to pay anyone!

If the makers of the site accepted that, it would be a lot easier on everyone.
(And since this site is a Wiki, this change has now been made)

Mac.
PS: Aldernard: 'In Production' just means it is on the site. It doesn't mean somebody is making the film. 'In Progress' would be a better title. And Scott Fener may have 'copyrighted' the scripts as well, but once he submitted them to the site he agreed that it could be used under the Creative Common license - so it is free to use.

And the idea wasn't 'stolen' from Wikipedia - There are plenty of "Wikis" out there. Wikipedia is just the most famous of them.

PPS: awrigh01: I suspect this was just a drive-by spamming (so you'll probably never read this) but it is ILLEGAL in the USA to market the site like you have. You can NOT say "I found this cool site" when, in fact, you are not just an enthusiast who found the cool site. If you don't believe me, just research FTC findings against 'Georgetown Publishing'.

Even if you didn't know that it was illegal (in which case you probably shouldn't be marketing a website, since you are unaware about the laws governing marketing !) you MUST have known that it was misleading.

What will make us sure that you haven't been misleading the users of your site about anything else ?

"The collective creativity of humanity far surpasses the unique talents of a few individuals, and together, will lead to higher quality, more entertaining scripts."

Is it just me or is there a distinct whiff of Marxist-Leninism about this? Change 'entertaining scripts' to 'communally owned means of production' and you've got yourself a manifesto.

You can drink the Kool-Aid if you want, Stego, but I've seen enough snake oil to know not to waste my time with that "service."

stegosaurus said:

I think writing with others and seeing how others create is invaluable to us as artists...and where's the scam? do they charge you join the site? No. The only thing is that somehow...somewhere if they the sky rips open and someone actually buys a script from the site (and lord knows that happens all the time...uh...right?) then we might not get any money from it? Who cares?

Click to expand...

I'm agreeing that it might be fun (or frustrating!) for hobbiests.

However, let's be clear. It is not free. The cost is that you lose ownership of EVERYTHING you submit. That's what the 'sharing' license of the Creative Common means. You no longer 'own' it. If that's zero cost, then fine.

Also, Wikiscripts, despite what they think, can NOT sell the finished script. It's not about lawsuits. The 'sharing' provision means that any derivitive work from something covered by the Creative Common license' is also covered by the license.

This means that if a filmmaker makes a movie from the script, then cinemas can show the film WITHOUT PAYING the filmmaker. DVD makers can distribute the film WITHOUT PAYING the filmmaker. That is the whole point of the 'sharing' license.

If he/she had put the proposal forward as a way of sharing, and been upfront that it was impossible to make any money from it, then there would not have been the same reaction.

But people may mistakingly believe that there is a possibility to be financially rewarded for their time.

Mac
(PS: There have been some very good short 'Publically Shareable' films.
eg: http://www.undergroundfilm.org/media/2005/1017942_lar.mov

It'd be fun to make one. However, you don't even get credit, as you agree that 'WikiScripts' will be considered the author of the final script - not you)

I agree screenwriting exercises are fun and I've been to a few classes myself but I can't imagine a more endless and ineffective exercise than changing a person's work to suit your style only to have it changed back a few days later by someone else, without discussion, for reasons unknown.

But the main reason I responded so strongly is I don't like the idea of aspiring writers (however naive) thinking they could be due some sort of payment for contributing to a script when it's clearly not going to happen. The site should not make reference to payment percentages being distributed amongst substantive contributors - it's confusing and deceptive. They shouldn't mention money at all. And the whole, "revolutionize television, Hollywood, and Bollywood by organically producing consistent high quality and entertaining scripts" sits badly with me even if they're being tongue in cheek, which I hope they are. Talk about high horses.

clock_work9 said:

I agree screenwriting exercises are fun and I've been to a few classes myself but I can't imagine a more endless and ineffective exercise than changing a person's work to suit your style only to have it changed back a few days later by someone else, without discussion, for reasons unknown.

But the main reason I responded so strongly is I don't like the idea of aspiring writers (however naive) thinking they could be due some sort of payment for contributing to a script when it's clearly not going to happen. The site should not make reference to payment percentages being distributed amongst substantive contributors - it's confusing and deceptive. They shouldn't mention money at all. And the whole, "revolutionize television, Hollywood, and Bollywood by organically producing consistent high quality and entertaining scripts" sits badly with me even if they're being tongue in cheek, which I hope they are. Talk about high horses.

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Just because you don't have to pay to be on the site, newbie screenwriters will see it as an open door. Lots of people will not read the fine print or realize exactly what all of it means. They'll submit thier life's work, thier one pride and joy, without even realizing that they've lost it. Thinking even if they don't get full credit, they'll get something out of it. To me if you're not going to tell it straight and it envolves the mention of money, then your running a scam. If they would of said they were running an experimental site where screenwriters can come together and share there ideas by working on the same scripts as a possible way of learning more about the craft, then I would of said... heck yeah, that sounds great! But they didn't tell it like it is. So they lose. If you want to be apart of something that will inevitably crush the dreams of a newbie, because they lied, more power to ya.

Steph

SPAM--Wright is the owner of wikiscripts.org

awrigh01 said:

I found this cool new scriptwriting site, that I am thinking about using to start writing my first script. It's called www.wikiscripts.org. I am not one to promote sites, but I thought you guys would be interested.

The site is trying to "decentralize" the scriptwriting process by encouraging collaborat ive scriptwriting, which they claim lessens the pressures on aspiring writers.

On the site people to post concepts for scripts and freely edit all ideas and text on the website. The site is premised on the idea that collective creativity surpasses the unique talents of a few individuals, leading to higher quality scripts.

What do you guys think about this?

(Sorry for the duplicate . . . I think I put this in the wrong area)

Click to expand...

Oh, I love the internet, I really do. So much information out there!

Domain Name:WIKISCRIPTS.ORG
Created On:25-Oct-2005 23:18:35 UTC
Expiration Date:25-Oct-2006 23:18:35 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Abacus America Inc dba Names4Ever (R14-LROR)
Registrant Name:xxxxx Wright
Registrant Street1:xxx xxxxx xx
Registrant City:Brooklyn
Registrant State/Province:NY
Registrant Postal Code:11231
Registrant Country:US

Me again. Looks like the gentleman didn't find the site but founded it. I stopped copying and pasting before Mr. Wright's phone number and email address, but they're around for the taking, too. If you'd care to write him a letter, though, you've got everything you need but the stamp. Tell him how much hope you have for his site, and how much his spamming means to us all...

Maryn, occasionally helpful

It doesn't look like a scam, just incredibly pointless. A pretty much out of the box MediaWiki installation, running the Fantasy Writer online RPG.

However, let's be clear. It is not free. The cost is that you lose ownership of EVERYTHING you submit. That's what the 'sharing' license of the Creative Common means. You no longer 'own' it. If that's zero cost, then fine.

Click to expand...

Not true. If it's your script, you still have the right to do anything with it, including seperately sell the rights to someone to make a film out of it without having to release it as Share Alike (although that's only if it's all your own work). Although obviously, this is a hypothetical situation - the odds of that happening are roughly zero squared.

What you /can't/ do is retract a license that's already been given, so although you might do a re-write that isn't CC licensed, anyone could still use and build on the draft that you made available.

stegosaurus said:

I never thought a website could crush someone's dreams. So let me guess...you all copywrighted your little entries in this last contest too.

I think you're worrying about the wrong stuff.

Click to expand...

Uh, no. I don't think it's the "wrong stuff". It's important for us, as fellow screenwriters to warn newbies of possible misleadings. But hey, if you think it's so great, join.

Maryn,
Ever think of becoming an investigator?

I think once word gets around, he'll realize what a waste of time his efforts were.

Steph

stegosaurus said:

Well congrats! you guys did it! you thoroughly trashed some guys website without ever actually trying it...and did it with such style and grace too. I'm sure all the newbie screenwriters really appreciate all that time and effort you put into investigating and ultimately deciding how useless and stupid it was...I'm sure it was all for the newbies...had nothing whatsoever to do with your need to feel superior to someone else or some crazy highschool click mentality where everyone needs to be excluded.

Click to expand...

Well, I for one had a problem right off the bat, with the poster lying about finding it when it's his own creation. An inauspicious start.

And the fact that you're all obsessing about someone stealing your work without paying you for it makes you all look like newbies yourselves. I've never EVER met a pro who was scared about putting his stuff out there.

Click to expand...

We must not know the same people. While it makes sense to many to post scenes that aren't working, for critique and suggestions from their peers, I don't know any professional screenwriters who would post their stuff once it's polished.

and you also never know where that break is gonna come from. Don't deny someone else the chance to develop something. if you don't dig it, don't join.

Click to expand...

What I don't dig is people lying to and spamming their fellow screenwriters, and I'm fully at ease with pointing that out.

Maryn

stegosaurus, creative objections aside, it would appear that the site owner has told a little fib about "finding" the site, which does not endear him or his site to me.

All right, let's accept that the idea might fly, that it may benefit writers (even if it's only by stimulating them to write). The choice of whether to sign on is up to the individual. I personally am not attracted to it, not out of some irrational fear of someone stealing my work (which I'm pretty open about) but because it amounts to voluntarily surrendering control of my work with no guaranteed benefit or ownership claim on said work. Who does something like that? It's incontheivable.

-Derek
My wittle web page - hack stories, failed novels, dud screenplays, terminal writer's block.
My evil self is at the door, and I have no power to stop it.

Hey Guys!

I just read this great, fantastic, sure-fire money making script, called "Inferno" by Joseph Calabrese. You got to read this and get producers to buy it. It's awesome!

Signed,

Bob (really Joseph Calabrese if you check my ip)


How credible do I sound?

Spam is spam. Even the best intentions or the greatest opportunity doesn't change that.

If the poster is afraid to tell us the truth about his identity then why should we believe that site's purpose and intentions is honest. All the scripts being reworked could be his (and we are now doing his work for him) or worse.

I'm all for collaborating when there is a clear, well defined contract in place, but this is too dependent on the good graces of all involved.

If you want to do it for practice, fine, but as a viable method for polishing and selling your work? I doubt a producer would be interested in working with possibly 20+ writers on something he just optioned. It's bad enough when they have to work with one writer.

stegosaurus said:

Well congrats! you guys did it! you thoroughly trashed some guys website without ever actually trying it...and did it with such style and grace too. I'm sure all the newbie screenwriters really appreciate all that time and effort you put into investigating and ultimately deciding how useless and stupid it was...I'm sure it was all for the newbies...had nothing whatsoever to do with your need to feel superior to someone else or some crazy highschool click mentality where everyone needs to be excluded.

Click to expand...

I didn't think the site was useless and stupid because I'm superior-suspicious. I thought it was useless and stupid because it's a bad idea. I would have said just as much even if he wasn't a confidence spamster.

While it seems that WIKISCRIPTS may be a scam there is some good news... I just saved a bunch of money by switching my auto insurance to GEICO.

Rainy Night said:

While it seems that WIKISCRIPTS may be a scam there is some good news... I just saved a bunch of money by switching my auto insurance to GEICO.

Click to expand...

That's too funny.

Steph

stegosaurus said:

To (mis)quote one of my favorite books: Hollywood doesn't have a problem with plagarism...it has a problem with good screenplays.
.

Click to expand...

It's not Hollywood we're talking about here. Hollywood may never, or rarely, steal an idea. But it's all the peripheral rackets you have to be vigilant against. The ones that have little if nothing to do with real Hollywood. Wherever there's a big-money-making industry like Hollywood, and thousands trying to find their own fortune in that industry, you'll find scammers.

And beware whenever you see the word collective. For learning purposes, a lot of voices may be helpful; then again, look at how many voices on these boards contradict each other. Even collaboration with people you know may be a good thing. But allowing hundreds of novice voices to chime in on one script when it comes to selling it? Good luck getting anything accomplished.

I feel that script-writing is one of the few endeavors better served by a dictator than a democracy. At least something gets accomplished, whether good or bad. Look at the process after the screenplay is written: dozens of "professional voices" add their little inspirations which, as of late, hasn't added up to very good movies. Whether it's an army of script doctors, or the producer and his nineteen-year-old girlfriend who has a cute idea, it's a hellish process. Imagine the mess you get when the starting point--a first draft--is subjected to this.

Visited the site.

Even made some changes to see what would happen.
Actually, it's not a bad site once you figure it out which didn't take me that long.

NOW awrigh01, a few issues.

Do YOU own the site, as in it is YOUR work, YOUR effort to get feedback on YOUR scripts or do you WORK at the site which was conceived of by someone else? I think it's time you came clean and were honest about your intentions.

[note, all the scripts currently posted seem to be awrigh01's own work.]

May I suggest that you create an additional option for providing basic feedback along with the edits. It will be more beneficial for writers who post scripts to know WHY and HOW something works or doesn't then to simply change it with no explanation. This will also help other contributers to understand why the changes were made and may help avoid excessive over editing.

The site mentioned works COPIED from other sites. You may wish to clairify this. You CANNOT take another's script or pages from a different site and copy paste it onto your own site without the original writer's permission.
The rule should be that you can ONLY post YOUR OWN writings.

I don't have any problems with you coming to several forums and saying "I'm starting up this site, this is what I would like to do, and I'll start by posting my own work. Call it an experiment of sorts, it's a kooky idea I have."
You just should have been honest about it from the start.

If you want reviews and help with your scripts there are several ways to get it. The first step is to post five to ten pages on a site like this and then contemplate the feedback.
Then you can post the whole script at zoetrope and ....contemplate the feedback.
Perhaps you will develop some relations with people on the board by asking questions and responding politely. Then one of those might be willing to help you a bit more.
Next there are several people who offer script services at varying degrees of pricing and ability. You could interview them and choose the one you think best suits you.

I don't begrudge you the effort and the obvious time and skill it took you to set up the site, but you really needed to be honest about it and then "we" wouldn't have taken issue with it. "We" might have even supplied you with some useful feedback.

Oh, if you are interested in me explaining the changes I made then you can send me a private message through this site.

Best of luck to you.
Happy writing.

Stegosaurus, you have a truly heroic talent for melodrama. But you are also quixotic to the point of charming. I humbly agree to let this thread die.

(So tell us the truth now - you're sponsored by Wikiscripts, aren't you?)

The site seems pretty harmless if used as intended, though utterly pointless for the serious or quasi-serious writer. Collaboration can be a wonderful thing, however collaborating on one script with hundreds of strangers sounds like a surefire mess.

The benifit

I could possibly see is if those who make changes explained why they made them and how they reflect the concepts/ideals of screenwriting.

If the site focused on one script at a time for say, a month, and there was a discussion board for bantering back and forth the what nots and where fors of the script, then it might be a worthwhile site.