Project Greenlight Scripts

Question

I just read the two finalist scripts that didn't win PGL this year (Feast is unavailable at the moment). I thought both were pretty interesting, but it shocked me that they would be in the final three out of thousands, and that all the people on the show were raving about them so much (most of them seemed to think Feast was the wrong decision). Keep in mind, too, that I was reading the revised versions, which the writers turned in after making the semi-finals.
Hans Gubenstein is very interesting, and has a fantastic opening five pages. But it's also got a lot of messy dialogue, and several scenes that just seem forced. A lot of work would need to be done to the script to make it into a decent movie.
The first 40-50 pages of Wildcard, on the other hand, are a complete mess. It's pretty much like the characters are narrating the whole story through their dialogue. The entire time reading it, I felt like the screenwriter was trying to convince me that he knew all the cool cop/criminal lingo and various tricks of the trade. The "bad guy" was so over the top I couldn't help but laugh. The screenwriter doesn't seem to respect the freedom of his characters (using them instead as puppets of his plot) or the intelligence of his audience. And this is the script that the producers were saying had such high-quality writing.

Now, don't get me wrong. They were both interesting. And I could see them being made into halfway decent flicks (particularly Gubenstein), but only if there was a lot of work done to them.
I could see studios buying these movies based on the concepts, but wouldn't execution count more for a contest like this? I confess I haven't really read any other contest-winning scripts (unless they were made into actual movies that I was interested in), so I don't know how normal it is to have such unpolished scripts be finalists in a major competition.
I know PGL this year wanted to go mainstream and make a profit, so I wonder if they decided to pay more attention to concept than execution (and if so, is that normal for the major contests?), or were there probably just not that many polished scripts among the thousands that were entered?

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I just read the two finalist scripts that didn't win PGL this year (Feast is unavailable at the moment). I thought both were pretty[/nq]
I found two versions of Feast on SimplyScripts:
http://www.simplyscripts.com/f.html
Looks like the producers wimped out, opening with a girl scout troup eaten by monsters in a cave... sublime ;-)
They always cut the good stuff.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I found two versions of Feast on SimplyScripts: http://www.simplyscripts.com/f.html Looks like the producers wimped out, opening with a girl scout troup eaten by monsters in a cave... sublime ;-) They always cut the good stuff.[/nq]
Except that the revised draft is dated May 2004, which was before the producers got their hands on it. But I guess this was a change based on the judges' suggestions, since all six semi-finalists were asked to make revisions prior to the final selection.

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I know PGL this year wanted to go mainstream and make a profit, so I wonder if they decided to ... for the major contests?), or were there probably just not that many polished scripts among the thousands that were entered?[/nq]
If the latest contest was the same as the first two then the thousands of entries were first winnowed down to 250 (I think) by the contestants themselves. Based on my experience, the entrants had wide ranging levels of ability and experience and used radically different criteria in judging. With just a few reviews per script, it only took one poor one to knock a script out of contention. So it's very possible that many polished scripts did not make the first cut.

Usenet · Answer

This year, the script had to be a horror story or thriller, so that may have taken out some of the scripts.
Also, a major criteria is that the film has to be made on the budget they have. That means limited locations and limited cast.

But you probably get a good idea of what's out there by reading these scripts. Most scripts suck.
- Bill
PS: the blind judging the blind is also a major problem. One thing I've noticed (even in myself) is that writer's tend to look at their own major flaws as something that doesn't really matter... or, worse, as "good writing". So take a hundred writers who think that scripts should be 100% dialogue and you end up ejecting all of the scripts that are told visually. Though this seems completely unfair to have some know-nothing yahoo kicking your script out of competition, it's just preparing you for Hollywood.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]This year, the script had to be a horror story or thriller, so that may have taken out some of the scripts.[/nq]
Only one of the three finalists met that criteria
[nq:1]Also, a major criteria is that the film has to be made on the budget they have. That means limited locations and limited cast.[/nq]
The winning script didn't fit this criteria at all. Most of the first three episodes have been about trying to make a $20 million movie for $3 million.
[nq:1]But you probably get a good idea of what's out there by reading these scripts. Most scripts suck.[/nq]
Alas, that appears to be the problem. I just figured, out of two or three thousand scripts entered, they could atleast get three really good ones that were well-crafted and highly polished.

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Also, a major criteria is that the film has to be made on the budget they have. That means limited locations and limited cast.[/nq]
[nq:1]The winning script didn't fit this criteria at all.[/nq]
I was going to let one* go, but *two??
Wilford Brimley
Dan Aykroyd
Katharine Hepburn
Martin Scorsese
ctiteria - plural
criterion - singular

"A good story cannot be devised; it has to be distilled." Raymond Chandler

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]But you probably get a good idea of what's out there by reading these scripts. Most scripts suck.[/nq]
[nq:1]Alas, that appears to be the problem. I just figured, out of two or three thousand scripts entered, they could atleast get three really good ones that were well-crafted and highly polished.[/nq]
But I also think there's some self-selection going on. I know A LOT of people who are very serious about their craft, and working hard to get their big break.
None of them submitted to Project Greenlight.
Rightly or wrongly, the show has a perception among the people I know as being more about the documentary than about the finished movie. People I know who have a lot of confidence about their ability to break in feel like there's no need to subject to the "peer" review process or to the drama-seeking aspects of the show.
So I think you're dealing largely (although not exclusively) with people who don't have confidence in their ability to break in through more traditional means eg, the most experienced, most dedicated 10% of aspiring writers are mostly not bothering to apply.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]The winning script didn't fit this criteria at all.[/nq]
[nq:1]I was going to let one* go, but *two?? Wilford Brimley Dan Aykroyd Katharine Hepburn Martin Scorsese ctiteria - plural criterion - singular[/nq]
Dammit. I was going to correct myself after I realized I'd done it, but I figured no one would pay attention to it. Never underestimate the **** rententiveness of usenet.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must attend to my next agendum for the day.

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]This year, the script had to be a horror story or thriller, so thatmay have taken out some of the scripts.[/nq]
[nq:1]Only one of the three finalists met that criteria[/nq]
I was under the impression that the scripts had to be "genre" scripts, not necessarily horror or thriller. They were going for something more commercial, to avoid another tanking such as happened to the first two, which were both "coming of age" scripts. I suppose "coming of age" could be classified as a genre, or a sub-genre of drama, but when someone's trying to come up with a genre that can potentially make a few bucks, "coming of age" isn't the first thing that comes to mind.

Gene

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]may[/nq]
[nq:2]Only one of the three finalists met that criteria[/nq]
[nq:1]I was under the impression that the scripts had to be "genre" scripts, not necessarily horror or thriller. They were ... a genre that can potentially make a few bucks, "coming of age" isn't the first thing that comes to mind.[/nq]
Basically, what I'm hearing is that this year's PGL selections are unusual for major contests. I especially like Ron's point about the stigma that a lot of dedicated writers associate with PGL.

This reminds me, actually, of when I wrote my first feature script not too long ago. When considering contests I might submit it to, I thought about PGL for a moment and then threw out the idea. I figured, if by some miracle I actually won, my "prize" would basically be to have a first-time director - who might not even be interested in the script - destroy my screenplay. I'd rather keep my options open than to be given that "opportunity."
Perhaps more than a little arrogant of me, but it is what it is. And I'm probably not the only person who thought that about PGL.

So is it most people's opinion, then, that the finalists at Nicholl, Scriptapalooza, Open Door Contests, etc. are generally of a much higher quality than those at PGL?

Stephen Mack
"Nobody's smart enough to be wrong all the time." -Ken Wilber

Project Greenlight Scripts

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions