Hey guys! A community like this needs to be as supportive as possible, since we all share similar goals. Remember that we are in a highly subjective medium. If a script doesn't suit your taste, fair enough; but we're all trying to get attention from the gatekeepers of an extremely selective industry. Consistent 1 and 2 star ratings of people's loglines doesn't help a member's profile. Whether you read the entire script, or are just reviewing the logline, remember that we are all learning as we go. Once a movie or TV show is produced, that is a success in itself; at which point, I say, review as you see fit. But don't go out of your way to kneecap someone as they're trying to leave the gate. Personally I don't know if the rating system is that necessary anyway; but a positive rating certainly can't hurt. (Exceptions would be anything that is clearly written in malice or indifference toward a particular group or community -- in which case, bomb away.)
Screenwriting : Logline review bombing? by John Richard Sullivan
Other topics in Screenwriting:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
4 people like this
I half-agree with what positive message you're espousing. We should be an encouraging and positive community, uplifting one another. Some writers are just starting out and learning as they go. Some have a great idea and just need to hash out a few more drafts to near infallibility. Negativity is in no way beneficial.
That being said, we shouldn't mollycoddle a writer's work just to spare their feelings either. If there are errors in spelling, or grammar, or punctuation, they should be addressed. If there are errors in continuity, or coherence, or logic, or such, they should be addressed. If the story is prejudiced, or lacking, or unmarketable, or derivative, it should be addressed. Producers, managers, execs, etc certainly won't stifle their opinions and go so easy on them - nor should anybody else.
If a Logline is given a low rating, it should be explained why, otherwise it's just cynical trolling in my opinion.
3 people like this
I agree. It's more productive and valuable to address flaws in the comment section than give a low rating without purpose
3 people like this
If I give a lower rating, I explain that I'm rating the logline and NOT the story itself. Then I usually do what I did for my students, I try to edit the logline differently. (Whether it's an improvement is definitely subjective.) I found that sometimes the student's version was the best. English is a wonderful language, and there are many ways to say the same thing. (For example, if I want to save space: My MC kills himself due to the fact that he's a gutless snob. Better: My MC kills himself because he's a cowardly snob. Best: My cowardly, snobbish MC kills himself.) Especially, if the story isn't a genre I know well, I may not know tropes and conventions so I look for alternative information a reader might want to know, too, so I ask questions.
As for malice or indifference, these are probably the most subjective interpretations that exist. For example, if there's a black villain in the story, is that malicious or indifferent? It depends on your politics and how you feel about stereotypes and including POC in all aspects of life including the icky parts. What is "clear" to one person, may be iffy to another. My motto is, if you don't like something, don't keep reading it --- or watching it, or eating it, etc. You couldn't make the movie Hair today although it played on Broadway before it was a film. Why? It contains the forbidden "N" word .... Out of all the messages (anti-war, interracial relationships, teenage irresponsibility, drug use, theft, casual sex, religious blasphemy, etc.) it was the use of the "N" word that was least offensive back in the day. Ain't that a kick?
3 people like this
Hi, John Richard Sullivan. Is your inquiry a theoretical one or have you been "bombed" recently?
5 people like this
Great points, John Richard Sullivan. I think it helps if a person leaves feedback on why they rated a logline one or two stars. I personally like to give feedback before rating a logline (unless it's a five-star logline) to give the person a chance to redo their logline.
3 people like this
Consider me the old guy screaming “you kids get off my lawn”. But a kick in the ass teaches you to walk quicker.
This forum is where we come for support. To have informed discussions and exchange ideas. If you post work for review and it gets a kicking from amateurs, imagine the bloodbath that it would endure in a professional environment.
I watched the “Beckham” docuseries last night. He did nearly nothing else but football from the time he could walk. Had no friends outside football (even then only one to two). He still doesn’t have friends outside football. But he does have a football pitch in his backyard and practices each day at 47 years of age. He lives and breathes football. Guess what? His father made him practice everyday till the sun went down. He was so hard on him he made David cry. But that produced a Beckham.
In an industry that is harder to be successful in than professional sport. We need to run towards the hardship. We need to seek out those people that challenge us. Dan G (on this forum) and I bump heads in issues. But Dan has also private messages me job opportunities. I love that Dan holds my feet to the fire and doesn’t let me get away with laziness when it comes to comments that are not well considered.
Just my opinion. Now get off my lawn.. LOL
2 people like this
Well said. That negativity can be pretty frequent here at Stage 32 as well. It's self destructive.
2 people like this
Bill Albert really, Bill. where is that happening?
6 people like this
John Richard Sullivan Hi John, I’ve raised this a number of times. I think we shouldn’t be allowed just to post the star rating without qualifying it with a comment - and perhaps suggesting how to improve it. A (good mannered) debate can then ensue.
Yes, there are even people on Stage32 who can’t write good loglines and yet are handing out low star ratings to their fellow writers. This needs to be sorted out, to stop arbitrary, screen tapping ruling the day.
3 people like this
Geoff Hall. Right here, right now.
5 people like this
The consensus appears to be that good State 32 etiquette means accompany your rating with honest feedback (even if it's a positive rating -- let them know what you like about it). If you've taken the time to drop a rating on a logline and/or script, leave a couple of lines explaining why. It's far more productive and valuable.
5 people like this
John Richard Sullivan Thanks for mentioning this. I alerted our community leader of the issue. I agree with what others have said about leaving feedback for low ratings. Just wanted you to know this has gone up the chain.
4 people like this
Persistence and patience is key to making it in this business. Having the support of peers helps to keep the submission/networking momentum going.
5 people like this
Thank you for posting. This has happened to me where producers have liked my logline and asked for scripts but someone that has no credits gives the same logline a low star rating.
7 people like this
So good that you posted this John Richard Sullivan. I've noticed that a few of our members habitually leave low ratings, and never explain why. A good reviewer would never waste their time or inflict damage according to their level of interest in a genre. Nope.
4 people like this
If someone consistently gets 1 and 2 stars they might want to try and figure out why that is happening. If that is all they deserve and you give them 4 or 5 stars you aren’t helping them.
1 person likes this
Bill Albert go on, show me please!
4 people like this
Asmaa Jamil then focus on the Producers, Asmaa and don’t give the naysayers for your logline too much thought. After all, it’s the Producers who could be helping you get your screenplay made, not the logline reviewers.
5 people like this
I think I (and many others) were review-bombed by the same person (who at that time had no loglines of their own). Bizarre and unhelpful behavior.
3 people like this
John Richard Sullivan Please see my post in the screenwriting lounge re: logline reviews. Again, thanks for bringing this up.
4 people like this
It might be helpful to instruct folks on just what a LOGLINE rating is as opposed to a STORY rating. I don't watch or enjoy gore/scary stuff (it scares me!), but that's not the point, and I think people lose sight of the point. (Like some of the pitch-people!) Saying, "I don't like chocolate ice-cream" is different from saying "The consistency of this ice cream meets the standard for yummyluscious-ness, and it's reasonably priced." Both are opinions, but one yields information, the other is simply preference. It's the difference between opinion and informed opinion. If the logline is incoherent, the writer needs to know that I haven't a clue what the story is about after reading it 100 times. Streaming services are notorious for saying things like: This thriller stars Joe Smith (Tired Watching) and Miss Marvelous (Godzilla takes Miami) winner of three Golden Palms at the Whatever Makesyouhappy Award show ... that tells me the story sucks and is so incoherent you can't even give me a hint of what it's about. Some people, too, are so stuck in their own genre that if it's not pseudo-porn, they aren't going to like anything about being helped by angels. My idea of hell is watching sequels and prequels of animated kids' movies for eternity, but that doesn't mean people who write that stuff can't write a good logline. For example: Sueannbelle takes her four-hundreth trip around the globe in her gnatmobile and fights moonbeams.
6 people like this
Ratings don't help people... suggestions for how to improve it does.