admin

It didn’t take too much to persuade myself that I was on the right track. As helpful as my initial script consultation had been, I only had the showing of one screenplay contest, which I had placed as a finalist, to grasp how well I had implemented revisions. And while it was helpful to know that my screenwriting had gotten an accolade, what was always nagging the back of my mind was the ambiguity of how well I had applied the notes I’d been given.

I was putting this step of my writing process on repeat, now looking to get feedback on the feedback, but at least I would know how I’d actually done.

The Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition was also offering a level of in depth analysis, at a similar level to what I had already experienced with the Page Turner Screenplay Competition. I felt I would actually have a leg up when it came to this consultation, as I’d already been through it before, and that this would allow the conversation to dig even deeper into the elements of the script. If the screenplay had already gone through a level of polish with one industry professional, that had to mean there were fewer weak spots left, right?

And that then the focus could shift to not really weak points in the script, but things that could be enhanced further. Right?

First, I had to get accepted into this consultation. Just like Page Turner, this competition wasn’t offering this level of analysis for free, but unlike Page Turner, there was the mention of limits. Only four of these were done a month. That made sense, if deep analysis was going to be performed, I’d want the reviewer to have the time to read through my script, compile their thoughts, so that I could get the most benefit from their guidance, and cramming as many of these into their schedule didn’t seem conducive to delivering on that value.

I just didn’t remember hearing the other competition mention this kind of cap. Also, if I was the fifth to apply for this type of consultation, what would that mean? Would I be scheduled for the following month? Would I have to reapply when the calendar turned over?

These questions roamed rampant when a week went by and I hadn’t heard back from the contest. They had been responsive when I first applied, first acknowledging my request for the service they offered, and then asking what days worked best for me because they were filling out their schedule. I had given them a couple of options, and had even ranked the days by preference.

After a week had gone by with no communication, I sent a follow up to politely inquire. While they said their schedule was already booked for the current week, they did ask about my availability for the following week. I was still a little concerned about why I hadn’t been part of this week’s scheduling, with the Scriptapalooza experience still fresh in my mind, but I responded with a couple more days along with a ranking of my preferences. My mind was put at ease when they scheduled me for May 30.

It was settled…it would only be a couple of days before I was going down the same road again.

On the one hand, I had reaffirmed Dig Down‘s initial score was on target. On the other hand, I hadn’t set out to do that when I had reentered the Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition. My goal had been to determine if I had applied the round of notes and feedback I’d gotten effectively, and the resubmission was meant to gauge that based on whether I scored higher or lower than the previous time.

A score one point lower, but generally the same, told me nothing, especially when I scored higher in some of the criteria being judged, and lower in others.

I tried to rationalize this to myself. Maybe it was because of the judges for the two separate contests. Yes, the scores were nearly identical, but I could see a whole host of reasons why I hadn’t seen the improvement, or even decline, I’d been looking for. Maybe if the first judge reviewed the updated submission – not that I’d expect or rely on them to remember it – but it was possible, and seeing the notes applied to it, maybe I could’ve scored higher. Maybe the second judge wasn’t a fan of the genre, and so even though it scored well, that could have held it back.

I looked to see who the judges were for both contests, and realized none of these scenarios were possible. As it turned out, it was the same judge.

This sent my mind reeling even more. Again, it wasn’t that the judge didn’t like it, it wasn’t that the revisions didn’t work for them. The script had done about the same when I was expecting that with the revisions I’d made off of the two and a half hour phone consultation would have improved it dramatically, or at least gone in a different direction enough to make it noticeable it didn’t work for audiences.

I wanted to get this judge’s perspective–and not just because he wasn’t scoring the screenplay as high as I would’ve liked. Because to me, this wasn’t an isolated incident, but part of a trend. Even Page Turner had only placed Dig Down as a finalist. And the judge there had wanted to see what I did with the revisions based on the phone call with him.

I felt in some way I’d gotten confirmation that Dig Down still needed some work done, but I didn’t have any direction on what needed to be addressed. Looking for possible solutions, I explored what was available to get comprehensive feedback again.

And the first thing to jump out to me was another consultation. This one over Zoom. And with the head of the Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition himself.

Hello everyone,

Just a quick interjection to the saga of my screenwriting journey that I’ve been chronicling for the past year…

Over this past weekend, February 1st to be precise, I just completed the first draft on a new screenplay.

I won’t get into too many details for now, and as is typical as part of my writing process, I’m going to be taking some time away from the story so that when I do return to it, it will be with fresh eyes. I’ll let you know when I do resume working on the script.

But, for those who have loyally been following along with all the twists and turns of my screenwriting journey, I will share the name of the screenplay I’ve been working on…

Every Outlaw Needs Tall Tales

I’ll continue to interject updates to this project within the timeline of my screenwriting process as they happen.

Until next time.

I had re-entered Dig Down into the Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition because I was familiar with the criteria and categories they used for scoring, and because I knew with the deadline only days away, I would get that feedback quickly. I had also done so because although I had gotten great feedback in my first round of contest submissions, I didn’t know how well I had implemented that advice. So when I get the scoring back for my script this second time, I was…

…disappointed.

What led to this feeling wasn’t that I had scored lower than the previous submission. Since my goal had been to see how well I incorporated the feedback and notes I’d received, my hope would have been to have scored higher, as that would have given me the feedback that I had done it well, and in that case, I would have felt more assured that the reason I had placed as a finalist in the Page Turner Screenplay Competition was that there was just another script that the judge’s believed in more. But, if I scored lower, that still would have been fine, because at least then I would have known I didn’t do a good job incorporating the notes.

The thing was, although I scored lower, it was only by a point.

This actually was worse than if I’d scored noticeably lower. At least that would’ve given me some direction, even if it was to stick closer to the original submission. Or, even if most of the scores were the same, and only one category was lower, I could at least address that by keeping that aspect closer to what my previous draft had been.

The problem for me was that I scored lower in about as many categories as I improved in. I dropped by a point in Pacing, Dialogue and Emotional Response/Investment. But I had risen two points in Concept/Originality.

This mixture of results also presented no easy solutions to regain the points I’d lost and improve the overall scoring of the script. I had originally scored a 6 on Concept/Originality, and believe I got it to an 8 by expanding on the backstory of what led Rob to this state–but in order to do so, that elaboration created more time between tense sequences, which I believe led to Pacing dropping by a point. This exchange was still a positive scoring-wise for me, but it illustrated how creative choices could work for me in one aspect, but against me in others.

I had almost as many questions as answers, and knew I needed to delve into this deeper before deciding what to do next.

Hello everyone.

Here are the notes and feedback I received for my screenplay of Dig Down when I submitted them a second time to the Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition after I had incorporated the notes and feedback from the judges of three contests:

The audience has been exposed to several well-written and executed thrillers, especially
since the growth of streamers. The challenge of presenting a thriller that is fresh in
perspective and style is more difficult today. Dig Down is surprising, compelling, and
unpredictable in the best of ways.
It takes a while to understand the structure but as it all starts pulling together, it makes for
a satisfying read. Direction has a huge role to play in bringing this structure to life and
will make it visually simpler in connecting the dots. The key twin timelines with Rob at
the center of the action are fascinating, and as the timelines converge the puzzle comes
together. One reveals Rob as the monster and the other as the hunted. It is an unusual
structure and is crafted well.
The flashback within the flashback, however, can be somewhat dizzying. The flashback
sequences are disparate cutaways of different characters connected with the investigation
of the coke haul, politicians, SEC manipulation and El Volcan. It is a risky device but if
visualized cleverly it could pay off because the threads come together in the end. The
structure is designed to keep the suspense alive. There are also flashbacks like the ones
where Axel and Rob are speaking on the phone with sequences building their relationship
in the past. Flashbacks like these in an already layered structure could defeat the viewer’s
patience and should be reconsidered.
Another area where the writing could get attention is the dialogue, which can sometimes
sound stilted and detracts from the emotional pitch of the narrative.
The relationship between Rob and Preston could be written with more nuance so that the
ending is not only shockingly brutal but emotionally cathartic as well.
The use of humor to diffuse tense situations is used effectively for example, in the scene
between Office Hastings, Sgt. Stogey, Rob and the Shark. It is great when that unhinged
jaw comes a full circle at the end when Rob suffers a similar fate and is unable to speak.
The script is promising and the odds of a contemporary filmmaker opting to make it are
high.

There were two reasons I had re-submitted my script of Dig Down to the Santa Barbara Screenplay Competition to get feedback on the feedback I’d already gotten. The first was that I was familiar not only with their scoring system, but also the level of notes that I would get to give context to their judgment. I would be able to see where they were coming from with their scoring, and I would be able to compare this to the score I’d previously gotten the first time I entered their contest.

The second reason I chose them was because the deadline for their upcoming competition was fast approaching. This meant I wouldn’t have to wait long to get their critique.

Below is how the second draft I submitted fared:

Scores:
Concept/Originality (8)
Structure (8)
Plot (8)
Pacing (8)
Characters (7)
Dialogue (6)
Tone (8)
Conflict (8)
Emotional Response/Investment (6)
Marketplace Potential (8)

There were notes that went along with these scores, which I will share the contents of the feedback next time.