Good question, Anthony. I'm curious to see the data, metrics on this, how many scripts are submitted, how many rejected, how many make it, and then what happens after that (pass, option, purchase, and the platinum: got made)?
Dan MaxXx It's different than a studio's definition of an OWA, where "in house" writers are used. In the Stage 32 version, production companies contact S32 for a certain type of screenplay, i.e. sports dramas or westerns or horror; S32 then posts their version of an OWA in The Writers' Room, where members can submit for free their scripts for evaluation by S32 readers. Chosen screenplays are moved forward for consideration to the requesting production company.
I'm 1/13 in OWAs. Also curious about the percentage of pitches that lead to a script request. We all know our chances hover between "slim and none". I'd just like to know how slim, slim really is.
I am sure I won't get any likes for saying this but I will anyway. That is an interesting question. I hear about meetings and requests but it seems a sale or job offer would be rare. I wonder how many of those people are really looking for a screenplay and if they are they probably looking elsewhere as well. I wish everyone luck but it has to be considered a longshot so they should be doing other things in addition to doing this.
Mark Deuce Mark, I realize that its one submission per person per OWA, but my question is how many submissions on average are made to each OWA. In other words, how many members submit a script on average to OWAs? With over a million S32 members, is it hundreds or thousands of submissions per OWA. Of course, not all S32 members belong to The Writers' Room, so is it in the tens on average to OWAs?
Anthony Murphy Hi, we’ll there may be a million of us, but not everyone in this community is a screenwriter and not every screenwriter is part of The Writer’s Room.
I have 7 feature scripts, which I've submitted a total of 35 times (Some titles have won national competitions, so I'm aware of their merit.). Once all titles were submitted to various OWAs, I contacted S32 with the following question: "Since I've exhausted all my titles to OWA, isn't it pointless to continue to submit?" The Answer: "No, you should continue to submit. If not selected, it simply means that your script wasn't a perfect fit for what was desired." Then riddle me this, Batman?-- If the S32 readers come across a title they've already rejected, wouldn't they simply toss it to the side with the notion of "I read this already. We didn't pass it along to producers." ? Thus the process continues to repeat itself.... for all eternity.
Anthony Murphy I recommend writing lower-budget screenplays and contacting producers that make them directly. You can probably find some on the IMDb Pro. Also, you can try to attach a director who has several credits to one or more of your screenplays and use their credits and contacts to help market your screenplay.
Great question Anthony Murphy. But aren't there new execs and producers coming to S32 all the time? And if they aren't looking for new material, why else would they come here? To make $35/submission?
Dan MaxXx We both know it is probably pretty darn rare if it ever happens. I don’t submit to that but I have paid to pitch twice to see what it was like. A director passed on it. His credits were old so he was probably just trying to make some lunch money. The other one loved the screenplay but said she was going to pass on it because I didn’t have any credits on the IMDb which is not true. Also, my co-writer on that screenplay is Judy Norton. https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0003354/?ref_=instant_nm_1&q=Judy%20Norton.
I'll chime in with my experience and observations. I was the first to get an option from one of these OWAs way back when they first started. It was a no-pay option, not ideal but I made it short because of that (9 months). I had several meetings with the producers and they had just been in the trades for a similar deal. They had guaranteed financing for up to $5MM per project and they wanted to explore some name talent for my project, which would have taken it up to about $7MM. I was busy so I let them do their thing. The project they were on went through some serious snafus that took all of their focus, and long story shorter - even with all of its buzz, that project ended up quietly going to Shudder. So, when the nine months were up, I let the option go. And have had ZERO progress with countless other submissions -- there have been a lot.
My views on the OWAs is that they are free to WR members so they can't hurt, but as others have pointed out, they really are not OWAs in the true meaning. They are more like mini-contests and therefore the material is evaluated with the quality of a contest evaluation -- not necessarily fitting a mandate. I stopped putting my name on the covers because I was sure every time someone saw my name they just set it aside.
That said, the mandates are so extremely vague there's no telling what the true ask is.
Derek Reid sadly, the recent labor strikes revealed how low the salaries are for majority of writers & actors, and I cant believe Execs in similar career paths make much either. So I dont hate a salary show biz person soliciting just to stay afloat.
Robin Gregory Yes, Robin. This is true and I read each assignment description closely before submitting. Once a writer submits, a S32 reader reads it, then if worthy enough, will submit it to said producer. After having seven screenplays cover 35 submissions, I find it pointless to continue submitting. They've obviously seen all my work. Time to stop spinning wheels.
Wow... reading through this and based on my own experience with 'buying" a chance to pitch, and/or submitting to a few OWRs, seems the best way to go is to just use the computer to write the script. After that, focus on finding a way to know people on a personal level rather than an insipid computer monitor. I'm done with the faceless pitch. There's gotta be a more creative, more affordable way guys.
Thanks for your insight as usual Laurie Ashbourne. I would love to be so busy that I could let folks who gave me an option "do their thing.". The lesson? Always be working on something else. The OWA shouldn't be an end-all-be-all, but just part of the journey.
Martin Reese That's the reality of it. There are so many points along the way where a project can derail. Getting an option is nice, but depending on the players it doesn't always amount to much, (which is why you typically want option money). For the OWAs in the WR, writers really should go in with the expectations of a contest; in other words not all wins result in a film. If it advances, kudos, if it "wins" even more kudos. But the real celebration comes when the thing is on the screen.
I get it Laurie Ashbourne. That's why I'm in a class on film financing. Explore all options (legal of course. LOL!). Leave no stone unturned. It's a cliche and it's true. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
I hear what you are saying, Bill Brock, and I understand why you are stepping back from the platform. Now I'm wondering what advantage there is in being a WR member.
One thing that would be nice to know is if you didn't get selected, why not? For example there was an OWA I felt strongly I would be considered for. It didn't make it. The one I thought was a long-shot the same script got selected for. It's certainly interesting, but I still have gotten a lot more traction being part of this platform than just on my own.
Robin Gregory there is value in the room without the OWAs, it existed for years before they started. It's a much more closely knit group than the screenwriting lounge in general; I know many who have gone on to partner on projects, so the network is valuable (never discount that). Then of course there are the discounts and engagements with the guests that have in the past led to relationships and projects being requested.
Martin Reese Unfortunately that would be a can of worms, much like asking a contest why a reader didn't advance you. There is never going to be a world where it is that clear, BUT some more detail in the OWA descriptions and transparency in the process would alleviate a lot of writer anguish.
Oh yes Robin Gregory the Writers' Room has a lot of value. I agree Laurie Ashbourne that a little more detail in the OWA would go a long way. For example I submitted to an OWA that I saw as wanting horror with a female protagonist. I didn't get selected. Now looking at the comparables again maybe they were looking for something more grounded. In the future I will do a little more research before submitting to make sure I'm on the right track.
@Anthony Murphy - How many submissions per OWA? I count 113 unique names as OWA selections going back to start of September. Using Michael Eliot's success ratio of one out of thirteen, that would suggest there are about 1500 WR members. So for a broad request, 1000 submissions seems possible.
So Richard Buzzell how do you that is divided up? There are 6 OWAs per session. Every script doesn't meet an OWA mandate. They certainly have put out OWAs in a session that I wouldn't submit too. That number is going to really vary per OWA.
Richard Buzzell I admire the tally work, but the OWAs have been around since early 2022. I doubt there is a set percentage that we can learn from (if there is it is a true contest with parameters such as 10 percent of entries advance to next round, which many contests do).
Someone from Stage 32 will have to weigh in, and I'm pretty sure it changes based on what they see works and doesn't. I'm certain it is not the same as it was when first implemented. But given the fact that each "request" is for something different and it's extremely unlikely that every writers room member enters each time, AND the number of members fluctuates on a monthly basis. There are thousands of members, we just don't see them all interacting.
The only way we would ever be able to figure it out is if the stats for each one were published and i really doubt that will happen (nor do I think it should be expected). There is also the likelihood that the person with the request varies in how many they want to see come through the filtering process.
I do think there could be more transparency in the reading process, and detail in the mandate/request (which I'm sure would also be a relief to the filtering process) but I've been saying that since the beginning.
Richard Buzzell Brock decides to weigh in via an original screenplay scene.
INT. STAGE 32 OWA CONFERENCE ROOM - DAY
A long stretch of mahogany business table play host to its occupants. Brock, seated on one side, faces a platoon of ten OWA readers on the other. His fashion armor consists of a black vintage 1983 Members Only jacket, his personal FU to the Beverly Hills Establishment.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Good morning, Mr. Brock. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. Collectively, my team and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your script. You possess an uncanny ability that pushed my team to turn several pages.
Brock shifts in his chair, offers a heavy sigh, possesses an uncanny ability to have heard it all before.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
Before we send your script off to the assigned producers, I'd like to ask you one question.
She points to his chair with the aid of her emerald-flavored, thousand dollar manicured index.
HEAD READER-IN -CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
What do you think sets you apart from the many content creatives who have occupied that very seat?
Brock's steely blue eyes drift down the table, note the ragtag team of skirts and suits. His powerful gaze, fortified by his patented stoicism, returns to HRIC Clarissa.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
Did you..... Did you hear the question?
Brock digs into his jacket pocket, retrieves a Taco Bell soft taco, a favored mainstay of the company's value menu. All eyes are glued to the fast food product as its rancid odor fills the air, indicating its three-day-old production time.
BROCK
This has been in my pocket for a few days... It's still good... You know?... Chemicals.
He takes a bite, chews with his mouth open. Team members exchange confused glances. HRIC Clarissa escapes Brock's disgusting, zero-star dining experience with a determined stare out the office window. Her long gaze, coupled with a soundtrack provided by Brock's saliva-drenched incisors.
She turns back to him, only to be met by a stream of molten cheddar cheese flowing down his chin. He puts out the fire by wiping it away with his jacket's exclusive band collar.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Do you plan on answering the question... sometime within the decade?
Brock drops the last bite of taco, scoops it up from the carpet, tosses it in his mouth, swallows. A chorus of moans and groans erupt from the team.
TEAM MEMBER DOBBS
That guy doesn't need a hit screenplay. He needs a freaking psychiatrist!
HRIC Clarrisa leans into Dobbs.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Dobbs, call security. Get him the hell out of here.
Dobbs rises, bolts to the door, opens it. With Dobbs' "luck of the Irish," a security guard stands a few paces away. He and the guard enter.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
(to the guard)
Here he is, Lew. He's all yours.
The guard approaches Brock.
SECURITY GUARD
Okay, pal. On your feet. Show's over.
A defiant Brock clings to his chair. The guard remedies the situation with the help of Mr. Night-Stick. He targets Brock's knuckles, shatters them with repeated blows. Brock screams like a screenwriter wannabe with no concrete credits to his name.
The guard lifts him from his chair, forces Brock's nose to kiss the table, cuffs him.
SECURITY GUARD (CONT'D)
(to Brock)
Let's make a deal. You be nice to me and I won't force feed your face to the pavement when we get outside.
The guard hauls Brock to the door.
BROCK
NO DEAL, PIG!!
The guard stops in his tracks, smirks at Brock.
SECURITY GUARD
Just what I wanted to hear. Enjoy your visit to the dentist.
Brock's witty response is to steal from Pacino's 1975 Epic, DOG DAY AFTERNOON.
"Brock screams like a screenwriter wannabe with no concrete credits to his name." Hilarious! Brooock-brock-brock-brock-brock... That's the sound of a cage full of thoroughly entertained hens.
I've seen OWA's where maybe 1 or 2 go through. I've seen others where 5 or 6 get through. It varies and you have to consider that at least a small percentage don't fit the minimum posted criteria. That being said, Stage32 "Moder" is very quick to post those scripts that make it to that next round, including the OWA #.
Richard Buzzell Hey Rich? It's all 100% satirical. It's my brand of humor at DefCon 5!! Kinda shocked that you had to ask. I mean, come on? I'm beaten to a pulp by a Rent-a-Cop security guard. Plan on formatting it correctly through Final Draft, then making it an official post... for the greater good.... or for the fairly okay.... or for.... just me.
Robin Gregory $35 x 10 is a pretty good pay for a 2 1/2 hour workday, even after S32 takes its cut. And the strike revealed how low industry salaries can be, so $35 to listen to an eight minute pitch probably sounds pretty good to many of them. I'd like to hang a shingle and do it.
Maurice Vaughan Neither was I, Maurice. Just intended to jot down a few fun lines and the damn thing took on a life of its own. Wish the Stage 32 system could have formatted it better, but you can't have everything. I must admit that I had a total blast writing it. : )
Anthony Murphy $3500 for 2.5 hours of listening to clapping seals with keyboards push their toilet paper scripts?!! Screw writing. From this day forward, I'm a tone-deaf executive who plans to multitask "CALL OF DUTY" on mute, while enduring scribes chewing my ear off during eight minute increments.
Whats disappointing is zero replies by Stage 32 management, zero comments ever by pay to pitch solicitors. There's like 10+ daily Moderators; not sure why this site needs so many.
Hey, Dan MaxXx. There are a lot of Moderators because there are so many people on Stage 32. And some of the Moderators have expertise about certain things, so if one Moderator doesn't know something (say about filmmaking), another Moderator might know.
Hey everyone! Lots here to be covered and unfortunately, the person who oversees OWAs is out of the office this week, so I don't have most of these numbers. I'll share what I can and what I do know as I prefer to be as transparent and upfront with our members as I can --
I don't have a number for the rate of meetings/options/etc. for OWAs, pitches, or any of our other services. But as always, you can see the success stories that people are comfortable sharing here (there are a number that have happened since I've been here that have asked to not be highlighted for privacy) -- https://www.stage32.com/scriptservices/success-stories
The number of submissions for OWAs varies wildly, and I unfortunately don't have a range I can give you. But for the person who guessed we have 1500 members for the Writers' Room, we have a MUCH larger number of members than that.
In terms of why you're not getting feedback on why a script wasn't chosen for an OWA -- Laurie's description of the OWAs on Stage 32 is fair. One big difference between an OWA and a screenwriting contest on Stage 32 is that a contest is open to any script in that genre/category and you're being judged against the other scripts submitted. With an OWA, you're first and foremost being judged on how well your script fits the specific kind of script that the company behind the OWA is looking for. Some comps/tones/specific genres are harder to nail than others. After that, it's a matter of who is best within the pool we have.
I know I didn't answer all of the points brought up, but I hope this at least helps. As always, you can email me at success@stage32.com and myself and the team will try to respond as best as we can as soon as we can. :)
I'm waiting for Bill Brock to weigh in on these new numbers revealed by Emily indicating way more than 1500 WR members. Would a high member count lend itself to a low repeat winner count? There are at least a dozen members who have been selected four or more times during the last five months.
Richard Buzzell I can't "weigh in" until my original short script, OPEN WRITING ASSIGNMENTS, is sold and they request a sequel. Meh, it's the nature of the business. No Big Whoop.
Hey all, I want to add a bit to what Emily said. For those that stopped applying to OWAs or those that are wondering if you should continue to submit. You should absolutely continue to submit to everything that you have a good polished script for that mandate. The requesters of our OWAs are always different and looking for different things, even when a mandate may sound similar. And the person who reads your script for one OWA may not be the same for another. And frankly - even if someone has read your script for one OWA they might not remember it, or they may see it in a new light when reading with a different lens. Also, if you're inclined to not include a title sheet like Laurie, that's totally fine. I just want to encourage everyone to keep doing everything you can. If you're putting limits on yourself for even submitting your work - that's on you. Set yourself up for the biggest chances of serendipity. Someone reads your script a dozen times in a row - who cares? Maybe it isn't right for exactly what the person is looking for. But if the 13th try is a great fit, it allows someone to think "Oh right! This script! I never thought of it like this. This totally fits!"
Is this a guarantee? No. Is it still hard? Yes. But at least take advantage of all the opportunities available. Because I guarantee you, others are. Work to give yourself the best chances for success!
the process would be streamline quicker (and with pay) if Executives just hire writers from the Writer's room based on their specs as writing samples? The execs know what they want - so do a baker's dozen meeting of Stage 32 writers and hire/pay someone to write what they want.
Dan MaxXx that is the way OWAs work in the industry- typically the meeting is prefaced (or filtered) by the writers presenting their take, and then a decision is made. So, yes, makes perfect sense.
S32 OWAs are not really OWAs. That's part of the issue here. It's a misnomer. A OWA is when a producer or studio has a project that they own. It's in development. And they need a writer. They're looking to hire a writer for the project which they already own. And there's indeed a real assignment -- a paying job -- that goes to the writer -- or writing team -- that they select for the job.
It does not seem like S32 OWAs have producers with existing, owned projects, with actual assignments to offer. Rather, it seems like the producers are simply looking for material. Well, EVERY PRODUCER is looking for material. There's nothing special or extraordinary about a producer hoping to find a good script or two. There's no inherent anything to a producer "just looking."
"OWA" connotes that there's a job. An "assignment" attached, down the line, to all the submissions being requested/considered.
RB is clearly super great at what he does. There's indeed a "draw" to the OWA, which leads to the Writers' Room. Like Field of Dreams, RB built it and they've all come. Proof of concept!
But the OWA moniker is not reflective of what the submissions truly stand for. Or what ends up happening, as far as I can tell. I wish S32 called the opportunity something else besides "OWA."
Interesting point DT Houston. I think the discussion overall is what makes this platform great and I am sure the concerns will be taken into account. Like you said it's an opportunity. Will it pan out? Who knows really? This business is a rollercoaster ride. I have friends who have had deals ready to sign and the deal falls through for some reason. The key is always how many irons do you have in the fire? We can look at how many submitted and how many were selected, but in the end does it matter? If you submitted and didn't get selected nothing precludes you from submitting somewhere else. If you submitted and were selected nothing precludes you from submitting somewhere else. It ain't over until a deal is signed. Keep pushing. In my opinion you only fail if you quit.
The term OWAs is not used the same here as it is within the industry. I don't know if it is worth the effort or not but in this business, nobody knows what will pay off or when it might happen. I would say the odds here aren't that good but if you are already in the writers' room all it costs you is a few minutes of your time. Plus I would imagine some people read their scripts over to make sure they are written as well as humanly possible before submitting. That alone might make it worth doing.
Here's an end of year update on the OWA selection numbers over the last six months. With a last minute surge the lumpen inched ahead of the regulars taking 130 of the last 259 selections. Make of that what you will.
@ Dan MaxXx I'm glad to say $$ is at the bottom of my creative bucket list. Easy to say when unrepped and unsold - keeps the mind clear and happy to keep writing on! :-)
Here's an update on the OWA selection numbers dating back to the end of last June. The regulars have fallen behind taking 150 of the last 314 selections. So a total of 203 different writers in that time frame. Looks like the Bill Brock thesis is still supported by the data but not quite as strongly as it was last year.
Richard Buzzell Thanks, Rich, for the recent "shout-out." I've decided to steal your phrase, "The Bill Brock Thesis," and use it as the title of my next screenplay or the name of my new 80s tribute Punk band.
Anthony Murphy I apologize for being obtuse. I was replying to your comment about producers making on the average "$35 x 10 is a pretty good pay for a 2 1/2 hour workday, even after S32 takes its cut." A pretty good average for them, right?
And to Richard's comment: since June, a total of 314 writers have been selected out of 1500 entries. That seems like a pretty good average for being selected.
But then there are bad averages that I didn't address.
Writers, such as you, Niki, Brock and others, have submitted a number of times and not been selected. Ah, but being selected doesn't mean getting your film gets made anyway. For none has gone that far. These averages seem to contradict and disprove the basic tenant that the more persistent you are (and willing to revise) the better your chances of being selected.
I suppose new opportunities for partnership may develop as a result of networking in WR, but averages tell us that we shouldn't expect our submissions to be purchased or optioned straight out of the OWA pen.
Robin Gregory Oh, I got you. I thought you were referring to my OP. I didn't mention in above posts that my work has been selected, but to clarify and for fairness sake to S32 and especially the Writer's Room, my screenplay, THE OLD MASTER, has so far been selected in three OWAs, so has moved forward to three production companies. Haven't heard anything yet, but we have our fingers crossed. We'll see. BTW I think I've submitted to a total of 7 or 8 OWAs, including two that I'm waiting to hear from.
Anthony Murphy Congratulations! I really feel that with every opportunity for exposure, we increase the chances of selling a script. It would be cool if 2 companies got into a bidding war over THE OLD MASTER. Ha! I wish you all the best.
Robin Gregory Thank you so much. And that's what I dig about the Writer's Room--it is a chance. I spent three days doing cold queries, and only had one company, Zero Gravity, request my script, so OWAs seem a good opportunity.in comparison. I might need a time machine to travel back to the 90s for a bidding war, but it sure would be nice if it happened.
Robin Gregory Zero Gravity, which both reps and produces, is one of the few companies that still welcomes cold queries, so if you haven't tried them, they are writer friendly. FYI, Zero gravity, when requesting a script, warns that they get so many, because of their open query policy, that it will take months to hear back from them, if the writer ever does.
Dan - Good question. I was wondering if anyone has been able to get a meeting as a result of an OWA. If anyone out there has obtained a meeting as a result of an OWA it would've great to hear about it.
Other than my option (and subsequent meetings) noted in my initial reply above, I am not aware of any other "results" -- at least none that have been announced.
Richard Buzzell Hey Rich! Awesome detective work. I've been selected OWA twice, which means my script had been forwarded to producers. My supernatural thriller, THE DRESS, was first requested in December 2023 under the "Producer seeks Addiction Features" banner and the second request was presented in February 2024 under "Producer seeks Murder Mystery Feature with Unique Structure." There has yet to be any follow-up or notes from either producer.
Dan MaxXx I doubt they will answer that question. I am sure it is about the same as hitting a hole in one or getting struck by lightning. And I a also pretty sure they won't agree or like me even saying that. lol
Dan Guardino someone must be paid, otherwise pitch services will not continue to make $; Customers will just move on to the next script service, to next group of pay-to-read execs soliciting.
Scarlett Fox This post is in reference to the free contests that call for scripts within the writers' room (the call them OWAs but they are mini contests only available to Writers' Room members). It takes a few months for them to even determine which scripts they choose to send for consideration, and then it is up to whomever they send them to, so it would never be decided within a month. NOTHING IN THIS INDUSTRY IS. Have you secured paid options on InkTip?
Anthony Murphy: After reading all the comments here, I think maybe we ought to rethink what Stage 32 is for. With over a million members, world-wide, there is no way one site can be all things to all people.
Here's what I notice ... Members can present their material and get feedback (rate a log-ling, etc.) from each other, and that's a good thing, sort of like the workshop ratings from other students. But, we're supposed to pay for "expert in the industry" feedback (which may or may not be helpful). Then there are classes and workshops on character arcs, 'how-to' create suspense, etc. with fees attached, of course. And people offering services to assist new writers. Mostly people try to get their scripts better polished, through re-writes and re-thinking story points. Then there are the pitches: what to say, how to say it, advice and practice session, with fee attached. The OWAs go a step further, but, realistically, believing that people with goo-gobs of money to make and invest in movies probably don't pay much attention to site where writers introduce themselves as beginners, or "I have a terrific script, now what do I do...."
Think about it. If you're a producers, star, director, investor, are you REALLY going to read 1500 scripts to find a diamond-script, when you can call your niece who has a friend who's an agent and pitches ideas to her 1500 a week? People can go blind reading that many scripts all the way through. And, what's the best way to "break into" the business? Schmooze...all business relationships are personal relationships. We've heard a thousand times, but how many people get to Hollywood and have the $$$ to schmooze famous people?
So, maybe, we'd be better off thinking of Stage 32 as a piecemeal graduate school as opposed to a film studies program, say, at UCLA. Here's the web-site for UCLA: https://registrar.ucla.edu/archives/fees-archive/annual-fees/film-and-te.... If you're over 30, and/or poor, you can't attend. What CAN you do? Get an agent. If you can't attract the attention of a bona fide agent, you probably can't get the attention of a producer through a reader. Or ... start your own production company. Do you have a few million dollars to spare?
What I think we should do is get like-level writers together via ZOOM and have frank discussions about the industry, our scripts, making our stories more commercial, etc. The best thing Stage 32 can do is get Spielberg, or Scorsese, or Stallone, or some other star who is actively looking for material to agree to review a list of log-lines/synopses and read two a month. THAT would make it more than a club for the remote, poor, and talented among us.
Don't despair if you don't get selected for an OWA! As is the case with Blacklist, Red List, International Screenwriting Competitions, Nicolls, Austin, etc. etc., the fact is 99% of working and produced screenwriters have never won or placed in any of these things. Find your own way and be fearless. Your success does not depend on "winning" anything or "placing" anywhere! I've been optioned three times, two of my screenplays are in active production and I have been hired (for pay) to write screenplays and pilots quite a few times. I HAVE NEVER PLACED OR WON ANYTHING IN MY LIFE! It can happen to you too...
You dont need millions to start a production company; all you need is a cellphone & physical labor. Get off the couch and learn how to tell stories with a camera. Thousands of storytellers on YT, TicTok, Twitch. They didnt wait for permission.
I would definitely say that you are in a much better place here in the WR than you would be sending out cold query letters on your own and/or with another service. You're certainly much farther down the road in terms of a potential career path than you would be under different circumstances. You're among people who genuinely give a shit, just know that, and that includes your fellow WR members and the Stage 32 team. We want to see results for you just as passionately as you do. And you're in a place where your work can be and is being seen by industry professionals, and positively received in many instances! In my time at Stage 32 so far, one of the data points that has stood out to me the most is the frequency with which scripts are requested in the OWA process, it is such a great thing to see and keeps me inspired and hopeful for all of the writers here. Obviously, one area in which there is frustration is the absolutely interminable length of time it takes for producers to get back to you, and i know this all to well myself, and since i know how much it sucks to wait I make it my mission to give feedback as quickly as possible. We endeavor to cut down that lag time in whatever way is in our power to do so. I've been there, this business moves at a tortuous crawl so much of the time, but then it can suddenly open up. It's hard to know when, but when it does you have to be ready and armed with a positive constructive attitude. I've been a producer and filmmaker for nearly 30 years. There are times where the highs are very high and the lows are pretty damn low. I've dealt with the sometimes glacial pace of this business, only to be disappointed some of those times. It makes you want to beat your head against the wall. In short, I've been knocked down, alot. Just keep in mind that a piece of good news is one email or phone call away, it can come at any time. And at S32 we want to see that good news come for as many writers as possible, it's literally what we wake up in the morning wanting to accomplish. Bottom line for me is that I'm still here, making my way in this business and, more importantly, so are you. And any way in which we can make this process more effective for our members, we are looking at. I know it sounds trite to say just keep on climbing, but it's the truth. I say it to myself every morning!
Nick Phillips Thanks for the encouragement to us, Nick. It means a lot coming from someone with such vast experience. Sometimes it does feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall just to get someone to look at your work; and maybe worse, I often feel like I'm writing for twenty something year old film school graduates that hate to read. Anyway, you just got to keep punching.
Hi everyone! It seems this conversation gets kicked back up every so often and I get why. OWAs are a fantastic benefit to being a WR member. I won't rehash what I've already said about this in the past necessarily but I encourage you to scroll up and read because I think it's important. I understand the desire to draw a straight short line between an OWA entry and a project getting made or bought. We all know that 99% of the time it doesn't work like that. If you didn't know that, now you do! Statuses get checked, meetings are requested, dozens of emails and conversations are had, other partners come on board, etc. That takes time, patience and perseverance. I can tell you that each one of us working here has your back and we have the perseverance.
The industry is picking up and requests of all kinds are coming in.I can tell you that in the last 2 weeks, I know of at least 3 specific inquiries about OWA submissions from execs just about rights or script status.
The last thing I want to address is the mistaken belief that Stage 32 and/or the Writers' Room is all beginners. This is not true. One look at the people in this thread alone shows that. I consistently get executives calling me and telling me how thankful they are to work with Stage 32 specifically because we have the best writers. We do. Our community is made of people at all levels and career statuses. Our Writers' Room is filled with successful working writers - union and non-union.
Scarlett Fox Did you ever have any success at Inktip? All I ever saw was very low budget producers and film school grads. The S32 Writers Room is about the same cost, and I think a much better opportunity.
"It could be the logline, the budget, number of scenes, shooting locations, amount of cast, and the list goes on" This is a direct quote from the rejection from letter (that is so poorly framed it is insulting). If these are parameters that the "readers" have why are they not provided with the OWA listing? It would save the months of evaluation process (among other things) that's for sure. That is my biggest complaint about the OWAs that no one seems willing to address. The listings are so vague it's a complete crap shoot.
Laurie Ashbourne excellent point. Other sites that host producers looking for scripts have guidelines for submissions - cast requirements (6 o 8), locations (1 or 2) etc. I have a few of the rejections, which are fine, but if I knew they wanted minimal locations or cast, I wouldn't have submitted in the first place, and you're right, save the readers a lot of time. Might be something they consider in OWA.
Laurie and Jerry's point are good ones but the main problem with the OWA's seems to be that everyone is competing for a participation ribbon. You get selected and then the ride is over. Enjoy your ribbon. That's all you get.
Hi all, I'm more than happy to address that complaint Laurie Ashbourne ! The point of sharing many reasons why your script could have been passed on is to remind everyone that there are a million reasons why someone doesn't connect with or become interested in a script. We are as specific in the OWAs as the person who asks us. If we added several other parameters and a script was passed on, would you still ask for more parameters? Or is it that people just want feedback or the specific reason why their script wasn't chosen? And let's say an OWA lists a budget, location and maximum number of characters, but you (as a whole, not you specifically) have a script that is "perfect" for it except it has a few more characters. Would you really not submit? At least 50% of people would. We do not, nor does the requesting executive/company, have the capacity to tell every single person who submits to an OWA why they were not selected. It's just not feasible.
I'll be very frank as well because I know everyone here in the Writers' Room can take it - this is part of learning about the industry. There just isn't enough time. People reading material do not have the time to give reasons. Especially if the reasons are "I didn't connect with it". As it is in all aspects of the creative world we are all going to her thousands of no's. And the majority of the time we never know why. Additionally, most of the time we never even hear back.
To address separately, the months long process for OWAs is no longer going to be months. The strikes drastically affected what we were able to do and we had a ton of material to get to executives as well as those executives had even more material to catch up on. The process moving forward will be much shorter.
To talk about the "participation ribbon" I want to say I disagree. But everyone may have different opinions on this. If you believe that getting your script in front of people who are currently producing work and looking for projects to develop is not worthwhile, that's fine. You don't need to submit. This is a long game. You getting your script in front of someone now may lead to something down the road. I know it's hard when there is no instant gratification, or even disappointment, but that's how networking and "knowing the right people" works.
As an aside, I don't know if this works for you or not, but actors are taught to forget an audition the second they walk out of the room. If there is interest, they'll be notified otherwise you have to keep moving forward and making progress. Once you put a script in someone else's hands to read, it's out of your control. The amount times an actor auditions for a specific casting director before they get a role can be dozens if not a hundred. It's just the same with writers. How many stories have you heard about a project being made start with someone reading a project that they weren't interested in at the time. In fact, John Graham talked about this several times on Wednesday's Webcast - go check it out if you missed it. https://www.stage32.com/webinars/The-Executive-Hour-with-John-Graham-Ben...
I do want everyone to also know we do hear you and hear your feedback in general. I'll look at that email you mention Laurie and see how I can improve it. We've recently done an overhaul on our communication processes as well as how we share the successes of all of you, and I know you'll see the fruits of that labor soon.
Feel free to disagree with me, agree, or continue to converse, I always love having a dialogue and I appreciate the conversations in here with you all. I obviously feel very strongly about this topic, as do all of you. And I care very strongly about the Writers' Room and all of you here in the community. I am always on your side.
Hi Niki H I understand the frustration, especially Laurie Ashbourne's. I think most writers want and need specific parameters for rejection. That way, we can hone in on areas for revision. To list all possibilities for any screenplay's rejection is not coverage. It's more like an article, book, or class.
Thanks for the reply, Niki. But it really DOESN'T address the vagaries. Quite simply because we are given the "mandate" of a genre and 3 comps as well as the need for the script to be up to industry standards and be WR members. Those are the filters we are told the "readers" use. By those measurements there would be no doubt far more scripts going to the requestor than they want, so there is clearly another filtering process -- one that is more akin to contests (which lets be honest, that's what these are), but the point is, we are not privy to that additional level of filtering.
And I use "readers" in quotes intentionally -- Who are these people? What are their qualifications? How much do they read of the script? If it is like most of the first round contest readers then it is minimal on all those fronts and even more of a waste of time.
If this is going to be a genuine process where a DECISION MAKER can do something with a script that fits a mandate, why on earth would that process not be as transparent as possible?
This is not about "it's not for me," we are all grown up enough to understand that. The majority of the scripts that fit the vague parameters given never get passed on to the decision maker that set the parameter, and instead a secret cove of readers are making the decision for them. Or if as eluded to; it is in the logline only, that should be shared with us, so that the loglines are given the TLC they need. Or better yet, just have a request for loglines.
It's a lovely part of being in the WR, but if it is not transparent and genuine (it's already not an OWA, by industry standards), then it does far more harm than good. I hope it gets adjusted somehow.
To Robin Gregory 's post and to clarify in as few words as possible, it's not that there should be specific feedback on rejections, it's that there should be SPECIFIC PARAMETERS ON SUBMISSION.
A true OWA is when there is a specific script/story that a production company wants to hear the writers' take on it before making a hiring decision. The writer prepares specifically for that mandate. If we're submitting to OWAs there needs to be specificity and transparency.
Laurie Ashbourne You are right it is not an OWA. It is not even close to one. People have a better chance of calling producers somewhere else and it doesn’t cost any money. I know the OWA is free for people in the WR but not for people that aren’t in the WR. Even if it was free I wouldn’t waste my time submitting to any of the producers there.
Ok, so to strip it down as much as possible, I'm seeing 2 main issues -
1. You don't feel the OWA process itself is transparent enough
2. The parameters are too vague
Let me know if that's correct. How do you propose we address the parameters issue? How many parameters do there need to be - what should be included? If one isn't specific enough should we not pass it along? You'd rather have fewer opportunities but they're more specific?
Also just want to add - that having more parameters on submission is not the same thing as knowing what parameters your script didn't meet. In case that is also an issue.
Here's a sample mandate from the ISA site. "US producer with access to studio space seeking genre features, preferably action or action centered. Budget range $3-8mm.
Star vehicles are preferable. Male or female leads. A strong hook is a MUST. They intend to sell in overseas territories as well as the domestic market. They are looking to build a small slate over the next few years."
Ok great! So that mandate compared to "Producer looking for action or action centered feature. Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate" What do the differences mean to you?
"Producer looking for action or action centered feature. Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate" is essentially a call for an action contest, so to submit to that (presuming your script is to industry standards and you are a member of the WR) there is no reason your script shouldn't be passed on to the requesting company for them to decide whether it aligns with what they are looking for.
- this is where the transparency issue comes in.
For instance, by drilling down to an example similar to what Richard posted, narrows that considerably. So there would be far fewer submissions, or at the very least more certain reasons why a script didn't fit the parameter. Much clearer and easier for everyone on both sides of the bar.
If some submitted an action film that was clearly a $50 million dollar film or one that was for a male lead on an entirely American premise it would be an easy filter to take it out of contention. By being this specific, there would more often than not, be fewer scripts to weed through, which would/should be a more targeted and better experience for everyone throughout the process.
Right now, there's no telling why the hundreds of action or action centered features with Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate did not advance -- was it because the requestor asked to be given the top 10% of submissions? Or only 5 submissions? Were they given a list of loglines to choose a handful from? No one knows. Moreover no one knows who is doing the filtering and their experience level (could they determine a budget range or market if that was a parameter?). If there is less to filter because of specificity -- there is less guesswork.
The OWA process is broken. It need to be reviewed and feedback from members needs to be incorporated. The founders and leaders of Stage 32 should take in what everyone has said. I have no idea if even get feedback on some of my submissions because they come months later and I get the same feedback no matter what I submit. Imagine what would have happened to companies like Costco or Amazon if they had not listened to their members.
Thank you for the specifics Laurie that is helpful. It seems like most of everything really comes down to the actual process of OWAs and transparency and how the scripts get into the hands of the requester. I do understand the feedback about parameters though I don’t believe it would actually stop people from feeling like their script should have gotten through. I could be wrong. I am talking internally with the team about all of this and your feedback, that’s why I’m here talking to everyone. I hope some are not seeing this as pushback, as I am genuinely trying to get specific thoughts so I know what discussions to have internally to make changes.
Richard, no absolutely not there is no payment involved. People come to us because they trust Stage 32 and the breadth and talent of our writers. You.
Niki H I think you'll be surprised at the deliberation and due diligence serious writers put into submissions (for anything -- pitches, contests, consults etc.). I for one, put enormous amounts of due diligence into every single person I speak or submit my material to. if it is not a fit for any reason I don't do it, this can be anything from initials of the person instead of names to credits that are verifiable, to online complaints. I dig deep and every writer that consults with me or knows me reaches out to ask if a person or service is legit. Will you still get people who submit a drama for a family genre request? -- absolutely (but it will be far fewer) -- we can't cure the world, but we can stop the infection.
Niki - I have concerns about the lack of any success stories coming out of the OWA process. It makes me question how interested these companies are in sourcing material. It seems that they have very little skin in the game. On the ISA, companies have to screen submissions themselves. Here companies don't have to make much of any effort at all. I'm concerned that they might be in on the process only because it's a freebie.
I've been saying since I came to Stage 32 back in November that "OWA" should NOT be the title of these submissions. And I said it again when I gave Feedback to Stage 32 recently. Amanda and everybody else at Stage 32 know exactly what an OWA is. Yet the decision is made to put these out there as OWAs. I really don't get it. It's just dumb. And the parameters are lousy. Non-transparent. Fuzzy. Whatever you want to call it. I mean DEFINE IT DOWN and give more writers a BETTER OPPORTUNITY to submit EXACTLY what these anonymous producers/managers are looking for. It's not rocket science.
Although I've had some very solid success with multiple producers during my short time at Stage 32, I'll be honest, I'm about to say bye-bye to this Writers Room. OWAs are not worth the time. And they're not free. We pay $400+ a year to have access to those submissions. I can enter a lot of top tier competitions with that $400+ at places like Vail, Atlanta, Austin, ScreenCraft, etc, all places where my entries have netted high finishes and producer interest. Plus, for that $400 I'm spending in the Writers Room, I can put that toward 10 Ten Page Reads with Executives, and I'm quite confident a percentage of those reads will net me meetings. My batting average on 10 Page Reads is keeping me on the field, and well worth every $40 bucks spent.
OWAs...? There is no batting average. At all. And I say, no thanks.
I'm happy to talk with anyone at Stage 32 about this issue, or any other issue. And there are plenty of other issues, too. But I'll just bring up one.
WHO exactly is vetting the "producers" and "managers" who hear pitches and do reads on Stage 32...?
Are there SPECIFIC requirements for entry to be hearing pitches and giving notes to writers on Stage 32?
Here's why I ask: I took a flyer on a new face. A new "exec." He has ZERO credits. He has NOT been working in Film/TV, but I sort of liked his background/bio, and I had a particular project I thought might be a fit for his apparent "tastes" and his non-film/tv background. So I gave him a 10 Page Read. He read the whole script, and he requested a meeting. He's a cool guy. I liked him. A lot! He is, unfortunately, in my opinion, also completely unqualified to be listed as an "executive" or as a "producer" because he does not know what the "f" he is doing! Part of that evaluation comes from what his "notes" and "thoughts" were when it came to my script, but the bigger, glaring red flag came later, when...
He asked me to read a spec script of his that he had just finished. A First Draft, he called it. Based on his very limited and wonky notes on my script, I was curious to see what his "on the page" was going to look like.
Well, ladies and gentleman of the Writers' Room, to say I was shocked at what I saw would be a grave understatement. It was bad. I mean like Michael Jackson "Bad", with some leg kicks and Moonwalk all on it. And none of it any good/bad like MJ. It was BAD/BAD/BAD.
That was the end of my taking a flyer on any Executive/Producer/Manager that I don't know personally, or know of through the business. This experience instantly made me wonder about just how many other "executives/producers/managers" are wholly unqualified, making money doing reads and hearing pitches, and giving "notes and advice" to writers on this platform.
Final thing, by and large, on all the reads I've purchased via Stage 32 -- and I've done a fair amount -- the true pros, the former studio execs and the very established names, have always come through on time with flying colors, and it's been a total pleasure to have those meetings. Everyone else, it's kind of been bullshit. A crapshoot of lengthy delays and/or me cancelling or switching the reads to someone else. And, yes, I always extend extra time because I know the Stage 32 company line will be "these are very busy, busy people, and we have to understand that and be patient." And to that I say: and we pay good money, and nobody is forcing them to be on Stage 32. It's their choice to make themselves available for pitches, reads and consults. And Stage 32, you should do a much better job for YOUR WRITERS, and ensure that all of these "execs" will perform on time. And if they can't, if they're too busy with their day job, then maybe they shouldn't be here.
Sad to say it, but it's true, I'm over Stage 32 and looking to focus my time and efforts elsewhere.
You know, someone at Stage 32 told me that the company operates "very, very lean." As in, number of full-time employees is not large at all. Well, there's a LOT of components to an org like this. I'm not going to put 87 octane fuel in my car that requires 91 octane fuel. It won't run well.
I submiited to an OWA on Inktip (no pre-approval required - the "O" in OWA) and got a reply ONE YEAR later. Haven't done one since. Would be keen to hear of anyone who's been optioned, signed, or sold from an OWA.
I also have to agree with Richard Buzzell comment about the process of Stage 32 essentially doing the development groundwork for each and every production company/producer/manager who decides, "Hey, this is easy! Wait, so, I just say I'm looking for XYZ movie and Stage 32 will do all the work? I get 5-7 scripts sent to me. That's it. Awesome. I don't even need to hire that cute USC intern now."
I mean what producer wouldn't want to sit back and collect 5-7 scripts for doing nothing whatsoever? The days of Studio Production Deals are over, but for the big fish. Every independent producer I know, hey, they're searching for that next buck, that next job. It's not an easy time to be an indie producer, with nobody giving you a paycheck. (One hit me up for $ not long ago!) Writers, you are not the only ones trying to figure out how to pay for shit. Trust me on this.
Hey, wait a second, I'm a producer now, too. I'm partnered-up on feature projects with two former studio executives, and I'm also managing 2 writers, and I plan on producing their scripts, as well. I qualify! Where do I sign up for this free Stage 32 development services for my production and management company, BulletProof Train, LLC? I am ready.
Stage 32, you make it easy as pie for all of these producers to be UNSERIOUS. Richard Buzzell is absolutely correct: when there is no skin in the game, no blood, no sweat, and no tears, put towards the effort of finding material, reading through material, is it really any surprise there's basically been justoneOWA which has resulted in a semi-deal with Laurie Ashbourne ? And that was like over 2 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. No, it's not surprising in the least.
It's a piece of cake to reject 5-7 scripts that someone else just handed off to you. You relied on someone else to decide for you. Where's the incentive factor? It's a total freebie. It's House F'ing Money. Maybe you really are looking for material. Maybe you're not. Maybe you have money to spend. Maybe you don't have a nickel. But if Stage 32 is going to let me collect 5-7 scripts and do all the work for me, fuck yeah, (I can cuss, RB does it all the fucking time) sure, I'll fucking say I'm looking for an Action Thriller or a Grounded Horror, or a Rom Com with a Happy Damn Ending.
Sign... me... up. Costs me nothing. And I have zero actual commitment. I'm dating a hot girl, and I'm not looking to get married. Just having a lotta fun. And she's a cheap -- check that -- free date. So, Amanda, Emily J, you've got my email, let's do it. I'm ready.
C'mon, let's get serious Stage 32. This has got to be the longest damn thread on the entire platform. There's a reason for that. It's because the entire OWA effort is broken, ineffective, and needs an overhaul like nobody's business.
1 OWA verifiable deal in 2-3 years is not a "success story." It's a distress call, is what it is.
RB, you're "one of us." You say it all the time. Well, as one of us, my guy, I think you need to be front and center in the process of fixing something that clearly needs fixing.
And by the way, I'm not just bitching to bitch. I'd also be quite happy to pitch in and lend my voice and ideas in an effort to actually help make this process better, and create REAL opportunities for all the writers here who work so hard at what they do, with their very real hopes and dreams of attaining success.
Nick Phillips, if you're poking around these parts, I will see you Sunday on the Zoom call.
(Yes, I'm really busting my hump trying to develop and produce feature films. And when I'm looking for material, I'm not window shopping -- I'm REALLY looking for material. With my own sweat equity.). -- DT
Niki H A lot of what is being said here is very disturbing. My questions are simple. Has a writer ever sold a script through a Stage 32 OWA? And if so, how many deals through Stage 32 OWAs have been made? Thank you.
There’s definitely opportunity to offer a premium service that decision-makers pay for. It’s been discussed by other services as well. I know the guys at the gauntlet/Script hop have said that their ultimate goal is to make it a service that the industry people pay for and not the writer. Which let’s face it that’s what it should be because Writers are getting raped for money constantly and that’s where all of this, sort of frustration comes from.
It’s not exclusive to Stage 32. It’s every service out there when they charge money, whether it be for a contest or consultation or whatever, there’s always the possibility that they’re only in it for the money or as in the reference here, there’s no skin in the game.
There are plenty of industry, databases and services that they are accustomed to paying for — they pay for premium listings through Variety, tracking boards etc. that comes with the territory and there is no reason there shouldn’t be one for Writers or any creative above the line for that matter, but that’s not why we’re here. For the reference to the gauntlet and how they will be able to justify it, is they are providing the feedback/scores and breakdowns that their vetted working readers (readers who hold jobs getting paid to read for studios) provide so it fits more naturally into their business model, but there is definitely a massive need to elevate the transparency of whether people, requesting scripts reviewing scripts, reading, scripts, consulting on scripts are doing it to educate the writers versus looking for material. That's my huge frustration. I am a working writer and producer, I don't need an out of work 20 year old's opinion.
Every time I speak with someone through a premium service, they immediately assume they’re here to educate the writers and have no intention or ability to do anything with the material— I’ve even had people on the executive roster hit me up for work in the past, so when I see them offering services, it doesn’t sit quite right.
To have a mass announcement that hundreds of OWAs advanced magically in one week for requests that span, God knows how long, raises enormous eyebrows, because who the hell read those who suddenly open those floodgates I know for a fact, it wasn’t the roster of readers that do the contest reads or the industry coverage that is not executive specific. In two days time I got more than 30 emails about OWAs. The first round that came all at once was "our readers are hard at work and will update you soon." The very next day was "Thank you for your submission! We really enjoyed it... Unfortunately blah blah!. And yes, there are that many exclamation marks in the form reply.
I am in a unique position where because of the work I do, I literally have a script that fits every mandate. That, and because the mandates are so 'effin vague it's not hard to do. To have the floodgates of emails that clean out a backlog screams AI.
It’s like here’s our quarterfinalist for six months worth of OWAs — and we all know that that is how contests operate and that’s what we have here anonymous contests, anonymous processes and frankly nothing comes of it. Just like contests. Most contest scripts that are winners don’t get made or sold, and frankly shouldn’t— It’s a different read for a different process - huge distinction.
"To have a mass announcement that hundreds of OWAs advanced magically in one week for requests that span, God knows how long, raises enormous eyebrows, because who the hell read those who suddenly open those floodgates I know for a fact, it wasn’t the roster of readers that do the contest reads or the industry coverage that is not executive specific. In two days time I got more than 30 emails about OWAs." -- Laurie Ashbourne, my thoughts exactly. If the desired effect of all this was to wave a big, feel-good flag at how great this all was, it also simultaneously shined a LAPD Helicopter's NightSun Light down upon the problems. And I would say exactly what I've said here and above whether I was winning, losing, or drawing.
The OWA here is just a contest. Screenplays get made because the screenwriter or their Agent knows someone. I like being here because I like communicating with other screenwriters but I hate them trying to sell me the services they offer so their emails go directly into my spam folder.
Consider a "WR Members Advisory Group." There's plenty of folks with some experience and POVs which could he helpful in offering suggestions for change. For the better. In a constructive way. I don't know everybody here, but I know enough people to know that getting a member think tank together would likely not be too difficult. Writers that come to my mind...
Laurie Ashbourne (A multi-hyphenate force. Look her up.)
CJ Walley (A Brit who puts shit into action, whether it's his own gritty projects, or creating SCRIPT REVOLUTION.)
Francisco Castro (Has been staffed, and has smart/interesting ideas re: diversity. And he just nailed like his first 4 OWAs yesterday. What the hell took so long, FC?)
Michael Elliot ("Seasoned" and, yes, often snarky(!), but one helluva talented dude who I'd love to see get his well-deserved flowers... with a great Vietnam script that's been abused and loved in unfair measures.)
Stanton Rabin (a former WMA & New Line story reader and ace analyst, who also happens to pen books and Win prestigious contests with multiple specs. Has probably read more scripts than just about anybody on Stage 32. Also loves baseball and horse racing. I'll bet she cooks a mean lasanga, too. I am hungry.)
Anthony Murphy (you started this epic thread, you're in.)
Maurice Vaughn (the "MVP" -- "Most Visible Person" on all of Stage 32. Mo, you're the biggest Pom-Pom thrusting cheerleader and ray of positivity on the entire damn platform. And I hear you write some tight Horror action, to boot. I'd be remiss not to toss your name into the collective hat.)
DT Houston (No one will ever outwork me. And I don't suck at what I do. My three-point jumper and still fairly-wicked crossover dribble might not help fix the OWA sitch, but, hey, ya never know. They've served me well.)
I'd say that a big issue is transparency... you get an email saying "congrats, it's in the mix" and then a vague statement saying no. Who's rejecting it?
If it's the gatekeeper on S32, wouldn't it be helpful to know why? If it's a wrong fit, whatever, but knowing that can help you focus your submissions better.
if it's the Prod Co, then it's a shit happens moment.
Let’s say I am an independent producer (which I am BTW - so the following is based in reality), who suddenly has the ability to get a buddy road trip film into production — quickly —whether that be financial reasons, or star reasons, or location reasons; whatever. So I come to Stage 32 Writers’ room and say, “put a call out for a road trip, buddy comedy in the vein of Plains, Trains and Automobiles, Due Date, Identity, Theft.” Somewhat vague, but still far more specific than what most of what we see in the listings due to the premise. Here's why it's not specific enough and why the process isn't working:
I don’t specify what the road trip entails, i.e. is it a specific type of vehicle? Is it a specific type of star? is it a specific budget? Does it have specific thematic value?
The way the process works now, that request seems to go on a long list of requests that will then be listed during a two week cycle sometime in the future, 200 people submit through the Writers room portal to my request that I made a month or so ago - some random room of whatever qualification people, look at the two hundred submissions and it takes them a month, then they come to me and say I’ve got 195 out of 200 submissions that fit your request. How can we narrow this down for you? Depending on what my reason for the request is, meaning is it a cast situation? Is it a financial situation? Is it a premise situation? I give them more specifics -- they go back through the 195, because let’s face it, if you can read a mandate you know if your script fits it or not, and quite frankly I am sure far more fit the mandate then the requester is being told.
So I, as the independent producer requesting this buddy comedy say, “OK give me one that has a male and a female for talent, and the vehicle they are traveling in needs to be an electric vehicle, super specific — but it’s gonna take the readers another month to go through those 195 out of 200 and I am putting all creative selection control in the hands of this anonymous evaluation process, but in good faith I say give me the top 3 that you think I will like — by the time they send me three that fit my mandate, I read them and meet with the writers to see if they are people that I can make a deal with... the money or whatever resources that I had to make the movie four, five, six months ago, isn’t there anymore because the material didn’t come in during the window that I had and it went to another project. This is the framework we are dealing with.
A true OWA would cut to the chase, put the call out immediately and take pitches for the specific mandate or maybe even short treatments.
Laurie Ashbourne"Every time I speak with someone through a premium service, they immediately assume they’re here to educate the writers and have no intention or ability to do anything with the material."
Agree, S32 needs to stop saying this Exec is "looking for or seeking" which implies they're after projects to develop, and should say "can offer coverage on" or similar. Like us, many are also hustling and some are trying to sell their writing and projects just like we are.
[EDIT To clarify, this comment was in reference to Script Services.]
I don't believe Stage 32 OWA is offering coverage. I think it is just a place where people in the Writers' Room can submit screenplays. The screenwriter doesn't know who the Reader is or who the Producer is. It's a shot in the dark at best but screenwriting is a tournament career anyway so maybe it is worth submitting but I doubt it.
There's definitely no coverage on the OWAs -- nor should there be. I don't think anyone wants that. And absolutely it is a long game -- anyone who thinks there is a short cut is in for a rude awakening. Even if a script gets optioned, or somehow greenlit, there are many things that can stop a film from getting made from it.
The entire point is, the process of the OWAs is far more frustrating than its worth. It could be an effective premium service but it would need a complete overhaul.
I have five open OWAs, the first of which was 0139, way back before the strike, but not moved forward until after the strike. About a week and a half ago, S32 sent emails to all writers that have open OWAs with producers, and said that the pros were backed up in their reading because of the strike, but that S32 would keep following up with them. My last two OWAs were just announced this past week, 0252 and 0261. On the 0139 OWA, S32 informed me that the producer was Go Productions, but revealed none of the other four producers. I would like to know who has my screenplay and check out their IMDBs, because if they all pass, then who passed, the production companies that were never identified to me? You got to admit, that doesn't sound right. I also did two pitches last week, and both producers requested the script. The pitches feel more real because I met the people via Skype and checked out their IMDB, so S32 put a face on these OWA producers. Ultimately, both the pitches and the OWAs come down to producers reading the script and wanting to meet or not; but you know, I tell myself, at least my script is getting read, and that's more of a chance than cold queries, which usually don't even get answered. Like I stated somewhere above, I spent three days doing cold queries and got one request from Zero Gravity, but have heard nothing since, because ZG is so inundated with submissions, they probably haven't read it yet. Living on the east coast, I don't know a better way than S32 pitches and OWAs, no matter how long the odds, but the odds are long for those living in LA as well, even if proximity allows an advantage, for it all comes down to whether the producer loves what is read or not. I appreciate the opportunity S32 affords me, but I hope that RB and the S32 Staff listen and implement some of the very good suggestions on improving OWAs in this thread, especially those made by Richard Buzzell, Laurie Ashborne, and DT Houston. Happy Easter to everyone.
And when there's a thread like this one, where's there's a hearty back and forth about why something on the platform is NOT working, it's quite apparent that the Stage 32 cheerleading brigade, and/or involvement squad, essentially drops off to be crickets. IMO, that's also not a good look. No disrespect to you Niki H , but when you're the lone S32 quasi-voice in the room, with an occasional post by @Emily J, yeah, that's just not really sufficient.
You can't just "Way to go, Creative Army!" all day every day and champion each and every minor -- and more often than not -- insignificant Shopping Agreement, and then fail to participate in a meaningful dialogue when it's not rah-rah-rah time. That's not leadership. That's selective association.
To me, it feels like a "Do Not Engage" policy, which, if correct, is just a shame because everybody here simply wants something that works. And I think we all deserve something that works.
Unless Stage 32 can incorporate a better system, I won't be coming back. And, yes, I realize I'm just one person, but if you get enough "one persons" who feel similarly, this Writers' Room will become depleted. Writers have many choices these days. There's no shortage of choices.
Hey, DT Houston. Engaging in meaningful dialogue is important, but keep in mind it's the weekend and there's a holiday tomorrow, and the Stage 32 Team is handling a lot of things with the platform, so you might not hear back from them right away. From Niki's comments, it sounds like Stage 32 is taking this topic seriously. Thanks for the mention.
This is a very loooooong standing thread Maurice Vaughan. A well-documented issue. And my comments are most certainly not directed at a weekend fix. Or at an immediate response per this thread. I think that's pretty clear. But it is nice to see you on this thread. :>)
Cool, DT Houston. I can tell you and others who commented want to see Stage 32 continue to get better. And go UConn! Just kidding. :D MVP. "Most Visible Person." I like that.
DT Houston I appreciate the fact that you want to see some changes and I hope they take your suggestions seriously. I tried it for free for one month. I concluded it was mainly for aspiring screenwriters who are trying to break into the business or people who want to tell people how successful they are so I didn’t see any reason for me to pay to be in the Writers’ Room. Like you, I’m just one person but believe me, there are enough wannabe screenwriters who will keep using these kinds of services. Personally, the only money I ever spent on screenwriting was to purchase a how-to book and a cheap software program to write my screenplays. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your comments and again I hope they consider your suggestions.
Hey Dan Guardino. Appreciate that. There's a wide range of writers in this room -- and also on the platform itself. From brand new aspiring writers, to working writers with lots of experience, to most points in-between. And what I try to remember as a member of this collective, is that everybody here has the potential to become successful, irrespective of where they currently are on their journey. Without question, Stage 32 has value. I want to emphasize that I'm not anti-Stage 32 at all. This place has actually been quite beneficial for me, personally. I believe it's a place that can help us all unlock certain potentials, improve our craft, and also provide critical pathways of access. And like you, Dan, I hope that any and all good suggestions towards improvement will ultimately spur better days and ways ahead for The Room.
Writing to let you know I haven't disappeared. There's a lot still for me to read and digest after my last bit and I haven't had time yet. I also want to let you know that we have been discussing the OWAs and all aspects of them internally. Promise I'll be back to engage again and I hope you know I am taking all of your thoughts seriously!
Congratulations! THE OLD MASTER is one of the top scripts moving forward for consideration and will be submitted to a Producer for Open Writing Assignment 0276.
Once we submit your script feedback from the executive may still take some time. but we' continue to follow up on your behalf and be your advocate in this process.
In the meantime, stay connected!
This is a huge accomplishment, so join us in celebrating your work! Head over to the private Writers' Room lounge to share your excitement with us. Additionally, we will be announcing the scripts we are submitting in our Wednesday writers Room executive webcast and in our newsletter.
Congratulations again and please don't hesitate to reach out to us a writersroom@stage32.com if you nave any questions.
Cheers,
The Stage 32 Team
This is now the 6th open OWA for THE OLD MASTER. I submitted for 0276 on 02/06/2024, so less than a two month turn around on this OWA.
That's good news on a couple fronts, Anthony. As you mentioned previously, and while we're (hopefully) fixing the process, it would be great to know where our scripts go when they do get passed on (it's actually our right to know, and it's not like we are asking for contact information). I have a handful that are out in the OWA ether that I've lost track of over the years. At least one of which I am now producing myself, so it would be nice to know whose inbox it went to.
Asmaa JamilGeoff HallMaurice VaughanLaurie Ashbourne You guys, thank you so much. Laurie, it would just make them more real. As I stated above, S32 should put a name on the OWA production companies, at least after you're selected.
DT!! I wondered where you went. Way to return with a flame thrower (they're fantastic in combat). Thanks for the kind words about me (including that I'm snarky which I consider a compliment) and "Nobody's Heroes". True, the story was maligned for years but once it did well at AFF, everything changed. Now, I have to confess, it's done exceedingly well on another platform. I'm in conversations with two production companies about the project, plus there's increased interest from major agents and managers. Not that it can't happen here but based on my experiences, for me it seems less likely. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that Stage 32 needs to do a better job vetting these professionals. Case in point. Last fall, I pitched my Romantic Drama to a female producer. She asked for the script. Months rolled by and I totally forgot about it. Then, on Feb 20, I got a Stage 32 email that said "congratulations, Pauline Producer wants to meet you". Really? So, I immediately emailed Pauline, told her I was excited about that prospect of working with her. Apparently I should have used some linguistic viagra because she hasn't been excited enough to respond 42 days later. I asked Stage 32 to nudge her. They told me to wait another few weeks. Truthfully, if I were in charge I'd tell Pauline she's cut off from access to Stage 32 members until she develops enough manners to treat us with more like professionals than plebes.. Now, I may snarkily have cut off of nose to spite my face but honestly, I'm way pass caring.
Dear Snarky, uh, I mean Michael Elliott. Yes, intended as a compliment, indeed. Happy to hear that Nobody's Heroes has found its groove and supporters. So well deserved!
I think Mike brings up an excellent point with the story he shared regarding the producer. There should be accountability, responsibility, and expectation criteria to be met by all of these anonymous Producers that Stage 32 brings in and dangles as the proverbial carrots before this Writers' Room. And not just cursory lip service at the onset, either, when a Producer comes on board. But ONGOING expectations to be met and adhered to.
This anonymous bullshit is a joke. Writers deserve to know TO WHOM their material may be going to, what credits they have, what they're looking for, etc. TRANSPARENCY.
I've thought about this whole "OWA" mess -- and that's really what it is, an unproductive, non-fruit bearing, non jobs-producing mess -- over the past couple days, and my realizations became very clear. I'll share, because that's what I do...
1) The Money Stream IS this Writers' Room. Period. Full stop. As Arianna Grande sings, "Thank you. Next."
2) The Anonymous Producers, who get to be involved in this game, with no skin. without having to do shit, or prove anything, or provide anything to anyone at any point, represent those proverbial carrots being dangled to Writers' Room members as the "benefit," the "hope," the "assignment," that you too can be in the running for. Now, please just click here. $40 bucks a month, that's right.
3) If #2 is not FREE, those Producers, by and large, will not participate. Remember those little discy things, CDs...? Yeah, neither does anyone else. When music became available for free, you were never going to put that toothpaste back in that tube. As such, why would Producers ever want to consider paying-to-play to be involved with Stage 32's misrepresented system and version of an "OWA?" Why would they want to, if pressed to do so, assume the responsibility of looking at all of these submissions themselves? Reading all these scripts themselves? Selecting the best ones themselves? They wouldn't. Stage 32 is doing it all for free! Work...? I don't want to work. I'm not doing that. Not for Stage 32. No way, Jose.
Furthermore, Stage 32, you are not CAA. Or WME. Or UTA. And I'll go down the totem pole to a lower-level INNOVATIVE Artists or APA (now IAG), Stage 32 is not an agency, at any point. I keep hearing Stage 32 touting, "We have the best Writers!"
Hmmmmm. Okay, well I have no idea what the hell that claim is based upon. This is not a merit-based, talent-based pool There are no qualifiers to be inside this Writers' Room. None. And no disrespect to anyone here, whatsoever, but Producers willing to be apart of Stage 32's fake"OWA" endeavor have zero expectation that this pool of material is going to be even remotely representative of a pool of material from an established talent agency or management group that represents screenwriters. If anything, Producers wiggling their toes into Stage 32's waters are hoping that they find a script or two, or discover a cool new voice or two, along their path of doing absolutely squat. That is the reality of the situation.
Legitimate, hard-working Producers, don't need Stage 32 for material, they have access to material, and have many avenues to discover and secure interesting material.
It is Stage 32 that needs Producers -- seemingly ANY Producers willing -- and their participation -- albeit a next to zero participation factor -- in order for the Stage 32 Writers' Room revenue stream to continue flowing.
This is called selling the carrot, people.
And if there are no legitimate jobs materializing, no real options being transacted, and nothing ever comes to fruition for any of the Writers' Room members participating... then I ask you this...
What the hell do we have here...?
We have the promise of something that never materializes into anything.
And there are plenty of words to accurately describe what that equation represents.
Pick your word. It likely fits.
Like Michael Elliott said, I am way past the point of caring. And, honestly, I just see a bad, bad system staying exactly the same...
Because, Stage 32, you need it to stay exactly the same.
Holy Mother of all flame throwers. DT, I've experienced some of the doubts, misgivings and conclusions you've shared and so eloquently expressed. Unlike you, I only shared with a few friends, you and Anthony. It's up to every individual to draw their own conclusions and carry on in their best interests. I didn't think they needed my advice. They'd either wise up or become mired in Stage 32's version of Three Card Monte. Yes, some people have benefited but it always seemed to me they were the exceptions. An organization with a million plus members should be able to grind out bigger numbers. Part of the issue is they try to be everything to everybody. Having spent 4 decades in advertising I know that can be fatal. You can't be all things to all the people in your roster. Some segments are going to suffer and/or underperform. So, I've essentially cast my lot with those who exclusively specialize in promoting screenwriters. And I've gotten, for me, far more traction. But, hey! I got to meet your an Anthony. As a closet misanthrope, that's a real accomplishment. And I hope we'll all stay in touch. I was going to start out with an incident in South Vietnam where my platoon was saved by Ramon Hernandez who operated the flamethrower. Yet as I recalled it, I got a bit quesey and decided against it. Stay in touch. It's hard for me to make friends and I'd hate to lose this connection.
Hello, all. It's a pleasure to be a part of such a great community and meet so many professionals, and I look forward to sharing ideas and receiving advice for developing my skills as a screenplay writer. Thanks again. :)
The nut of it is, no producer is going hand creative selection for a serious opportunity over to inexperienced or anonymous readers who use the same process as is done for contests -- it's the difference between "it would be nice to have" vs. "i am looking for." If they are truly looking for something, it wouldn't take reminding for a response after months on end.
Furthermore, to add just one more point... please look at the attached photo, which highlights on every S32 OWA, the promotion of...
"YOUR WRITING OPPORTUNITIES FOR A-LIST COMPANIES INCLUDING:
1) HBOMAX (uh, it's been just MAX since May, 2023)
2) BLUMHOUSE PRODUCTIONS
3) AMAZON STUDIOS
4) PARAMOUNT+
5) CIRCLE OF CONFUSION
6) NBC UNIVERSAL
No doubt, all heavy-hitters, correctly defined as "A-LIST." That's 6 carrots. As those are the carrots being loaded up into the grocery basket and being sold to us, I, for one, want to know how many times these terrific A-LIST carrots are extending opportunities and actually being involved in the S32 OWAs.
The only way for The Writers' Room Membership to know that information is to demand that we be given that information. After all, who is paying for these wonderful opportunities?
It is you. And it is me.
Funny, but I sure don't see any "Jim Smith Productions" and "Just Got Out of Film School Yesterday, LLC" in that group of 6. My guess is that there are far more "Jim Smith..." and "Just Got Out..." participating in the OWAs than the "Big 6." Like, by a Stevie Nicks "Landslide."
And, you know, that doesn't quite have the same sucking power as the ongoing promotional effort that A-LIST carrots posses.
IMO, it's disingenuous at best. It's clearly a calculated effort to be fully non-transparent, with certainty. And if I was a writer that was going to continue to be a member of this collective -- which I am not -- I would most definitely be demanding transparency across the board before I spent another dollar in this Writers' Room.
I submit to you -- "The Room" -- that you have the collective power and the ability to be the Checks and Balances here. And if you truly want real opportunities with the OWAs, my suggestion would be that you use the powers, collectively, to create the change.
There's a thing called "Power of The Pocket Book." And it's very real.
Founder, RB, is the one who is always waxing on about writers taking control of their own careers. Being the "CEO of You." I could not agree with RB more.
I second that emotion, and double it down, good sir. And, without question, that mandate does not, and should not, preclude any efforts within this Writers Room to demand transparency and change.
DT Houston YOU are the "Ferris Beuller" of this room! You're very popular with the Sportos, the Motorheads, Geeks, Sluts, Bloods, Waste-oids, Dweebies, Dickheads. We think you're a Righteous Dude!
Michael Elliott Mike, you're a honorable man and I'm happy to have you as a friend. Congrats on the success of NOBODY'S HERO! And thanks for all the support that you've shown me is this screenwriting odyssey.
DT Houston Very well said, DT, especially the annonymous producers segment. To paraphrase my statement above--After being selected for OWAs, I would like to know who has my screenplay and check out their IMDBs, because if all six producers who have it pass, then who passed, the production companies that were never identified to me? You got to admit, that doesn't sound right, Stage 32.
Laurie Ashbourne Laurie, that's what I'm talking about and why I feel so much better about the two pitches that I landed than my six OWAs, because there were faces and names to the producers that I pitched, unlike the annonymous OWAs. Both producers I pitched were just wonderful, and I enjoyed meeting each of them, and would be honored to work with either of them. But sometimes, and by sometimes I mean often, you make a pitch and you know that "pro" is there just to make the dollars you've wasted pitching to him or her. The two producers I pitched last week were there 100% to find a project. One of the producers even had his production team with him for the pitch. It was a completely different experience than any pitch I've ever made on S32, when that should be the rule and not the exception. Stage 32 needs to vet their "pros" more carefully and throw out the chaff.
A while back, a writer alerted me to a listing on InkTip asking for female led action-thrillers in the vein of Thelma & Louise. They'd alerted me because they knew full well I had a script that not only fit the bill but was an Amazon notable project no less - so had a little kudos.
But it got better. The request was from one of the biggest production companies in the industry, a production company run by a man a producer friend of mine knew well AND said producer friend loved the script of mine in question.
Home run, right? Needless to say, my heart rapidly made its way into my mouth as it seemed the stars had aligned.
So, I reach out to my producer friend and they get equally excited. I tell them to basically name their commission fee as any sale to a prodco this size would be monumental. We of course skip InkTip and go direct, like, direct-direct. My producer calls the man at the top and speaks directly to him, referencing the listing.
He knew nothing about it. His managers knew nothing about it. He couldn't find anybody who knew anything about it. He listened to a quick pitch on the script and passed, because it wasn't what they were looking for.
Now, a cynical person would have assumed the listing was false, but that was most likely not the case. What was more likely was that someone at an assistant level was sourcing material they felt the prodco should be making in a bid to pitch something a bit radical and probably make a name for themselves in the process. It made sense to do it under the big prodco's name as technically that was true and most likely to draw in the most submissions.
Whenever I see an opportunity for the average screenwriter to easily submit material, I assume something akin to the above is going on. I don't for a second think that the top brass are involved and, if they are, certainly aren't waiting by the phone.
The OWAs are borderline passive, and I think it's fair trade that any system behind it is opaque. I can forgive readers skimming or being at an assistant level. I can accept a competition rating mentality too if it means those that make it through are at least being put in front of someone who can maybe make something happen rather than sitting on some list in tweet.
I appreciate that S32 needs to sell the sizzle too, because I've learned from experience that most writers only care about that 1% pinnacle of the industry. Take it from a guy who tells people to give the small prodcos and baby producers a chance - most turn their nose up at it.
I'll say this too, I can't begin to imagine how much irrelevant and sub-par crap must get submitted every time. Hell, I might be part of that issue myself. It's why Script Revolution works the other way around despite people asking me to allow requests all the time. Nope. You can't trust people with that.
Does it nark me when I get that thanks but no thanks email? Absolutely. Do I immediately invent conspiracy theories in my head? Bro, the tinfoil hat is ALWAYS on standby after a pass. But I've done what at my end? Typed out a title, logline, and attached a script pdf? I put more effort into brewing the cup of tea after.
Anyway, I know full well what it takes to evaluate material at a Hollywood level, and I know what it takes for a script to be considered hot. It ain't pretty. I also know what the supply and demand is like too, and that ain't pretty either. The OWAs are an easy way to keep chipping away at the block. Fire and forget I say, well, until that rejection email comes in, so maybe fire, forget, and fuck's sake instead.
Anthony Murphy - Yes. I much prefer to pitch and to pitch live. And congrats on your good progress in the process. Although to the other points, not necessarily OWA related, the good feeling of the process should not be the exception as noted.
As in anything I do a lot of due diligence before I pitch someone, and as a result very rarely do here, but 4 of the 5 that I have in the past year have been an exercise in futility. No doubt because of the execs and not the platform. A combination of no-shows, to no feedback, to I love it, and I want a direct connection, which goes unanswered, to I love it, but feedback is never provided to that response, so I'm given a new pitch to try the months long process again. The one that wasn't, was the pro I knew her to be and she simply said, I love it, great scores on the feedback, it's just too small for what I am looking for.
That said, it brings up one easy way to fix the ABSOLUTELY BROKEN OWA system is to simply have pitches to the companies.
CJ Walley I agree that it is a complicated process fraught with insane scenarios like the example you mention. And I think we all have been on the fire, forget, and fuck's sake hamster wheel for too long. There has been no one that has been a bigger supporter of all that is Stage 32 than me over the years, and I am always the first to come to its defense when it is lumped into other nefarious services -- of which there are many, this process unless fixed is sadly in that group.
I agree there is likely a lot crap to sort through on any given so-called OWA but It should not be sorted with the same process as a contest. Certainly not the final selection process. As mentioned previously, even contest winners rarely get made. It's a different process for a different purpose. As someone who knows how the sausage is made, contests across the board are a waste of time and money.
I should add that the primary reason the one selection 2 years ago, (mine) that went as far as it did, (and could have gone further had it not been the problems of another production) was because Jason Mirch hand selected and nurtured it via his relationship with the producers. He knew if it came from me it was production ready. That level of attention is what is required.
Thank you CJ Walley, Laurie, DT, and Anthony for posting. I hope Stage 32 will get back to us soon. and CJ - I am happy to go the indie route. It's where one of my script is now.
Anthony Murphy The reason the producers are anonymous is that they probably aren’t even on IMDb. Just yesterday they announced 57 more requests from companies like CAA which is just an agency that seldom if ever agrees to rep screenwriters without a track record and two production companies that I couldn’t find on the IMDb. When they say requested it probably means the Stage 32 reader passed it on to the company so I am not sure that is even a real request from the production company. Spec screenplays are used to make connections in the business so keeping the producer's names is a drawback. I am not saying people shouldn't submit via the OWA here but think of it like buying a lottery ticket and winning the lottery shouldn't be the only thing in your business plan. Good luck!
I feel like I've taken on the role of devil's advocate here, so I'll throw in a few considerations.
1) Just because these submissions have been called OWAs, does not mean they have to operate in the same manner. Forcing them to may be a case of the tail wagging the dog at this point. Perhaps it's just an unfortunate but understandable name choice.
2) Not every writer wants to pitch, or do any more than they would when they submit to a competition. I'm a big advocate for "filling the gap" as I call it with at least a synopsis, but not every writer has one on hand.
3) We have to be careful when criticising a process we know next to nothing about. I feel a lot of pessimism is creeping in here. Maybe I missed someting. There could be a lot of care being taken, and I say that as someone who always gets a rapid pass.
4) More feedback equals more time and thus more cost. Plus, no prodco utilising a service is going to want to provide that if they are indeed involved in the decision making process in any way.
5) Industry members involved with this type of thing will always tend to lean away from having their names used as that almost always leads to being harassed by writers who don't respect boundaries.
If the OWAs were their own beast, I could totally understand the premium argument. However, as a benefit within the writing room, they fall within that package. In that regard, I feel they offer an opportunity most writers don't have, especially those not actively querying.
Maybe something more qualitative over quantitative would be better. I don't know. I just know that you'd be talking about a whole new process of working within an already busy organisation, just so people know why their material didn't get selected for submission. If that is simply because it wasn't fit for the assignment, then does that hold much value to the writer. If I got told it was because the reader thought my script was a 3/10, had poor structure, and bad dialogue, I wouldn't take any action. I'm waiting for alignment, not looking for guidance.
On my final days of skipping school and breaking rules, I'm far more interested in peeling back the curtain, breaking the 4th Wall, and lesson planning the money stream and concealment scheme.
Hello, Stage 32. We all know you are tuned in to this thread because it is indeed the best read going on this entire platform.
I, too, was drinking the Kool Aid. Until... I stopped. Until I woke up and realized exactly what Michael Elliott said yesterday in this very thread -- this whole Stage 32 Menu, if you will, works (maybe) for a few, to the exclusion of everyone else. I happened to be one of those few. Yes, it was working for me. Please realize that my sharing is not born from a Sour Grapes recipe. It's shared from a realization that although I may have personally benefitted from what I will call the...
"A La Carte Stage 32 Menu" of paid pitches, reads and consults with Executives of my choosing -- where everything is on the up-and-up and mostly transparent...
The "Main Menu," Stage 32's "Uninterrupted Writers' Room Revenue Stream" is, in my view, fraught with OWAconcealment, targeted obfuscation, and a, most definitely, purposeful and lengthy drawn out results window.
And it's all... by... design.
"Once you cancel your membership you will immediately lose any access to Open Writing Assignments, on demand webcasts, Private Lounge access, discounts on script coverage, contest entries and education and all other Writers’ Room benefits."
If you're anything like me, the main item you give a shit about is the OWA. In and of itself, the very paragraph above is a lesson in obfuscation. On its face, it clearly implies -- if you leave, you will then have no OWA access. At all. It does not specify and pinpoint. It's an overarching statement which is worded to KEEP YOU inside The Room.
What it should say -- but does not say -- is this:
"Should decide to leave the Writers' Room, you will no longer have access to future OWAs, however, you will remain in the running for any and all OWAs you submitted on while you were a paying member of the Stage 32 Writers' Room."
Stage 32, if you decide to make any efforts toward change and transparency, which I'm sure as hell not putting any of my hard-earned money on, uh, this would be a really EZ-PZ Pole Position place to start from.
This long-ass 8-10 week results, "winners," window. C'mon. It's all by design, people. CJ Walley made mention to this in a rather brief post the other day, "You're waiting how long...?" Or words to that effect.
Let's just say there's 1K members in this room. I think there is likely far more than 1K, but it's a modest number for this evaluation. I'm rounding up to $40 a month per member. That's $40K uninterrupted revenue, month-to-month, allowing for fluctuations in both directions. WE are paying that, and Stage 32 we deserve a much shorter "results delivery" window. Read those damn scripts. Pay those damn readers. And stop dragging the shit out forever. It only works for you -- it doesn't work for us-- the people who, you know, are paying you.
It's utterly ridiculous. But you see, the longer we must wait around to see these OWA results, the more OWAs we then enter, and the longer we then wait for those OWAs to reach results, then we enter the next OWAs... and on, and on, and on.
And what you have is a Stage 32/Fleetwood Mac, "The Chain"... which... all... links... together... and... keeps... you... waiting around... for... results... and... paying... your... hard-earned money... to... Stage 32.
It... is... a... formula.
Sidebar. Let's digress for a momentito...
I have this great little True Crime story that I'm attempting to produce. The man with enough kids to field his own AAU Travel Ball squad, Nick Cannon, was once attached to star in this. (Before I came to it.) Big Poppa is too old now, but I'm out to a 2024 version of Nick Cannon who might just pull the plug and say yes to doing it. We'll see. Fingers crossed. This project began as a book called "God Wants You To Roll." (Look it up, it's a great read!) It was later featured as an episode of the CNBC series, "American Greed." It's a deliciously cunning tale about how two ordinary, minimum-wage earning teenagers from So Cal used Churches from Coast-to-Coast to bilk the unsuspecting faithful out of 21 Million bucks with the promise of providing dirt cheap "Miracle Cars" culled from a " 400 Million Dollar Estate" of one of the teen's deceased father. Uh, but there was no Estate, and no father, and certainly no cars. After 7(!) long years, the Feds finally caught 'em. They went to prison for over 20 years each. But 8 million was never found. I assure you it's not lost, just safely tucked away. Waiting.
In "God Wants You To Roll," as in many stories of this nature, the wait -- the string along -- is a primary key to the success of the endeavor. Anyway, I bring it up only because it's a truly riveting story, and I'm fully hoping to be bringing it to a screen near you -- big or small, don't care -- sometime soon. Sidebar, out.
All right. I'm going to finish up here with Zero Gravity. Anthony Murphy, you began this thread 4 months ago. You started the conversation. I think we can all say thank you for that. I'm sure your intention was small and defined, you simply wanted to know what you wanted to know. But like a lot of things, the first intention can often morph and take on a life of its own. That's kind of what has happened here. The discussion has evolved into something much more substantial. Foundational. Operational. Without question, Amanda and RB have been watching this thread from early on, monitoring it, evaluating it, etc. Others, as well, I'm sure, but, honestly, I'm fairly certain that Stage 32 is primarily a two-trick pony show -- it's RB and it's Amanda.
Shortly after this thread began -- a few weeks, maybe a month or so -- there was a special little Zoom Call in December with a manager from Zero Gravity, a great guy named Eric Williams. I'm not exactly sure how many people in this Room were invited to this special Zoom event, but for whatever reason, I was invited and I gladly showed up.
Now, for a touch of backstory, Eric represented me for a period of time. ZG had not yet begun to reach A-List status yet, but they were definitely well on their way to doing so. Now, during this Zoom, which was great, by the way, I also learned that Amanda and Eric had been friends for a long time. So, all good there. It was my first time seeing/meeting Amanda, so it was just this case of knowing a person in common -- manager/producer/good dude, Eric.
Here's what I find curious about what happened in the following weeks ahead.
We'd had this thread going, raising a lot of questions about the OWAs.
We'd also had a very established and lengthy results window of 8-10 weeks on OWAs.
Then, shortly after this ZG Zoom, an OWA pops up on the radar for something super specific. A golf movie that Cedric The Entertainer could possibly star in. Clearly, that type of very defined OWA is not normal.That OWA is not going to get very many submission relative to the typical OWA calls. If I'm guessing, if you get 15 submissions that meet the Cedric mandate, that would be a true windfall of screenplays. I'm betting we're firmly standing in the 10 items or less line.
In any event, just on presentation alone, it was smelling really strange to me.
Furthermore, although I did not reveal this to Stage 32, I immediately knew that ZG was the company behind this OWA because...
A) I knew that ZG represented Cedric.
and...
B) My next door neighbors, two music producer brothers, are Cedric's First Cousins. And so I was fully aware that Cedric and a Golf movie would fit together like PB&J.
Although I already knew ZG was the producer behind the OWA, I wanted to see if Stage 32 would tell me that it was ZG behind the OWA. (I actually do have a Golf Movie, but it's not my script, it's a client's script. So I used that as the reason why I was inquiring -- could I submit his script?) Stage 32 would not tell me it was ZG, and no, my client's Golf script did not get submitted.
Now remember the results time window we have all been dealing with on OWAs -- 8-10 weeks, if not more.
You all might recall that this Cedric/Golf/OWA came back with fanfare results, in wham-bam-thank ya-ma'am!, fish-grease-on-a-skillet FAST turnaround time! Now, I don't recall the exact time, but I'm sure we can all find the post where Amanda revealed not only that 4-5 writers and scripts that had been selected...
Horn blowing ensues -- ZERO GRAVITY! ZERO GRAVITY! was behind the OWA! Exciting news to share! And it was a production. ZG was being paraded about.
Here we had a very sudden full-disclosure of a true A-List management company/verified, real-fucking-deal producer of legitimate film and television productions.
And I sat back and I just thought about the pieces I was looking at. I thought about what the Status Quo had always been. How things had always worked. Which is...
No transparency.
No revealing of the producer/manger, etc.
Long results window.
Rather broad, undefined parameters on each OWA.
And here we suddenly have one OWA where all bets are apparently off. One OWA where every Status Quo has clearly been bypassed. One OWA where everything dovetails together to perfection in this nice little, tight, quick package, which...
Flies in the face of everything we see on a daily basis.
Zero Gravity got trotted out.
Amanda Toney waved flags and tossed confetti at this fantastic opportunity that just happened for these 4-5 writers.
In record time.
Amanda and RB... if you make that the norm, if you make that happen all the time, if you make that something we can all expect from OWA to OWA. And that actually turns into some actual jobs for the writers you reportedly champion...
Then, you know what, this Ferris Bueller here might just drink that. And believe that. And be down to keep suiting up for that so called, "Creative Army."
All we need now is for one of the principals in this drama to be executed in a particularly brutal way (I pick death by flamethrower. I know where I can get one) and we have all the material for a riveting screenplay..."The OWA Murders". I'd write it but I don't think I could kill off my darlings, even if they richly deserved it.
I wish the lucky candidates on the Cedric/Zero Gravity opportunity nothing but good wishes and very high hopes. But in the timeless words of one of my favorite outspoken and tell it like it is humans on the planet, ex-NBA legend, Charles Barkley...
CJ Walley 1) RE: the name OWA - Yes.very unfortunate choice. So, why not change it? Changing it would actually make the process seem less "dirty."
2) Totally agree. The pitching aspect ties directly to whether these are actual OWAs or not.
3) Pessimism; maybe that's fair, but so is the criticism. I am the last person to criticize this platform and I typically save those notes for drinks with RB. But this thread is 4 months old, when it was simply asked to have more specifics in the process (more detail gives less room for doubt and legitimacy). And last week, all hell broke loose, and yesterday and today it seems there is still no resolve, and in fact it is business as usual full steam ahead with the process -- which points to the automation of it, which points to the need for it to be addressed. I say nothing here that I have not said elsewhere, and it has simply grown on its own volition.
4) I think it's been made pretty clear that the process does not need to include feedback. That is a double edged sword that will never make anyone happy.
5) Names (not contact information) should be given if that person has been given a script. Flat out. No two ways about it.
Agree. The IDEA of the OWAs offers opportunity that is not available elsewhere, but the actuality is, there is no opportunity if the listings are not legitimate people looking for material. As DT stated, 2 years. and only one project that made it to budget, casting and director discussions, is not an opportunity, it is a distress call to an ineffective process.
"I just know that you'd be talking about a whole new process of working within an already busy organisation, just so people know why their material didn't get selected for submission." It's not just so people know why -- a whole new process is better defined for everyone, including the busy organization. More precision in the request, less unqualified submissions, more accountability to the requestor (ie: Do you actually have the ability to move on something if you find it? And, you have a set reading period -- which BTW is completely standard in the industry), would ease the impatience of those waiting months or even over a year to hear back.
Honestly, I am not one to obsessively track submissions and I have no idea how many of my scripts are out there, but think of it this way, if it is an executive who works with Stage 32, who has been forwarded my script through an OWA, and I see that someone is taking pitches or consults for the same type of material (not knowing who the executive is that has my material, or who previously passed on it), then I purchase the service with that person, it is for no reason and certainly not alignment.
"I'm waiting for alignment, not looking for guidance." Truer words have never been spoken (or typed).
Dan Guardino Dan, as I posted earlier, the odd part is that when my script was selected the first time for 0139, the name of the producer, Go Films, was included in the selection email:
Congratulations! The Old Master is one of the top scripts moving forward for consideration and will be submitted (after the strike) to a producer at GO Films for Open Writing Assignment 0139.
But in the 5 OWAs my script has been selected for since, no production company is given, and perhaps you are correct that the anonymous "producers" have no IMDB credits.
Perhaps the people who pay for Writer's Room "perks" should ask for a P &L statement for for Stage 32? At least an accounting of the names and credentials of every person receiving $$$$ for their participation in the script process? If someone is legit, like college degrees that can be checked, their training, education, certificates, credits, etc. should be sent to everyone who pays for services....you wouldn't go to any other professional who refused to present verification of the source of their expertise.
Brock scoops up his little dog, looks around, takes in the mystical essence of his bizarre surroundings as Glenda the Good Witch approaches.
BROCK
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
GLENDA
Oh, no, silly one. Welcome to the Land of Stage 32, where you'll need to follow the yellow brick road until you reach OWA City. That's where you'll discover all information pertaining to Open Writing Assignments. But DO beware! OWA City is a place shrouded in mystery-- Extremely long wait times for feedback, nameless readers, nameless producers, and the nearly vacant news of rare success stories. Word has it that it's a place where everything's fake, counterfeit, fraudulent, false, bogus, invalid, artificial, synthetic, man-made, and so-called.
Brock enjoys an elongated sigh of comfort as Toto licks his owner's ear, then chews on an overabundance of fresh wax.
BROCK
Screw that noise! I'm just gonna click my heels three times, bounce back into Kansas, then wait for Auntie Em to scream repeatedly that dinner is ready. Lucky me. It's Taco Tuesday.
Well, Bill Brock,speaking of Toto, also one of my favorite old school (and under appreciated) rock bands. Just last night I was watching this little ditty with Steve "Luke" Lukather, lead guitarist and one of the truly great players. An old friend, too. Here's one tasty melodic solo off the cuff. Go to 1:19 ish
Laurie Ashbourne, great points. I don't really disagree with any of them. Personally, I just feel the OWAs are representative of any part of the industry that's looking for scripts online. As you well know, people with high levels of decision making power tend to have a backlog of scripts or at least trusted writers on hand. When I see someone soliciting for material it screams baby producer, studio assistant, lone director, startup prodco, new investor, or boutique rep, and I'm cool with that. Hell, I've built a platform pretty much serving that. Plus, the real meat of the opportunity may not be a particular script getting optioned/bought/produced but the networking done in an attempt to make that happen.
I think anyone responding to open requests just needs to accept that they are most likely dealing with part of the industry that's at its most fickle, messy, and naive. There probably aren't going to be impressive IMDb credits, there probably isn't going to be a strict timescale, and the path through funding and development is likely to be perilous at best. That's still a great opportunity for an unknown, uncredited writer, especially when it's offered on a plate.
CJ Walley I appreciate your Devil's Advocate role, but wanted to address the following argument, because it most concerns me:
"5) Industry members involved with this type of thing will always tend to lean away from having their names used as that almost always leads to being harassed by writers who don't respect boundaries."
How is an OWA selectee any more likely to harass an industry professional than a Stage 32 member who pitches via Skype that same industry professional that does or doesn't request the script? If this is Stage 32's reasoning, then why not have blind pitches as well, with the pro's Skype screen blacked out and the name of the pitched pro or production company kept anonymous? I would like to sell you what's in this box, but no, you can't look in it before or after paying me. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
And Stage 32 members act more professionally, regardless of IMDB credits, than some of the "pros' that we pay to deal with. I had one "pro" that I spent $250 for a consultation that without a doubt didn't bother to read my script, for he couldn't name my first plot point on page 27, when my protagonist, a boxer fighting for the world championship, gets his eyeball knocked from his socket so that it dangles on his cheek, his hopes and dreams dashed. I told S32 about this, but got no response, let alone a refund or at least another consultation. $250 is a lot of money to steal from a poor writer that's paid a "pro" to read his script, and then that "pro" has the audacity to dispense advice about a script he hasn't read, which really curled my toes. I had another "pro" that I ended the pitch thinking it had gone well, but got the rudest evaluation, after I was nothing but polite to him. I know of other S32 members that have been treated in similar ways. Professionailism, courtesy, and respect should be two way streets.
So Stage 32 should not only vet these "pros" more carefully, S32 should allow us to retort to the "pros" comments and evaluate the "pros" just like they evaluate us, and then get rid of the ones that are graded poorly. For example, my script is a period piece, but two "pros" passed on the script because they couldn't understand why boxing was being shown in the same venue as vaudeville acts. Well, because that's how it was, I would have liked to have responded, but there was no avenue to do so.
One thing that is abundantly clear with this thread is that there is a need for advocacy for Screenwriters.
Screenwriters that are dealing with services that are outside of the realm of WGA jurisdiction. Do we need to unionize? I don’t think that’s realistic, but the fact of the matter is I have amassed over my career, a huge file of services that are ineffective and a waste of an emerging Writers’ efforts. That’s putting it nicely. I have incredible amounts of information and have been in these organizations and have firsthand experiences from countless writers who have reached out to me and I have tested nearly every single service on the market. This is more than just my personal experience.
I know CJ has done a lot to advocate for Writers. He built an entire revolution around it — literally. And he did so to address these same issues. Thank goodness for CJ's voice in this.
Nonetheless, the cottage industry of script services has reached boiling point. It’s reached a tipping point because there are so many of them out there (many masquerading as individual services when they are all owned by the same conglomerate) and Writers are more educated now. They’re not only better at their craft, they’re better at their business — out of necessity and quite frankly no one should have to stand for substandard service.
Somebody needs to advocate for the writers as much as aspiring producers. Yes, independent producers are having a rough time right now and they too deserve to make a living. I know that firsthand as well, but that’s no reason to give them carte blanche and not give the Writers any credence.
There needs to be an organization that steps up and considers Writers first as opposed to people claiming to be producers.
The beauty and the ugliness of this industry is that anybody can be a part of it and therefore everyone is, and not everyone is qualified and that is on all sides of the industry, that is on people trying to get their scripts made, that is on people trying to make scripts Into movies, and that is on people trying to star in movies. It is a business born of scrappiness. It always has been since inception. But that does not give an excuse for people to just throw money after money, after effort after effort, into a black hole. I mean, I guess if you wanna do that, have at it, but You’ll never get a movie made if that’s why you want to be part of this business.
It’s time there was a service or platform, or whatever you wanna call it, that comes at this beautiful problem a little differently, I would hope that that would be Stage 32 — I just know that right now, such a service doesn’t exist.
This platform was built to democratize access, that’s the mission statement, it’s not to be just another money grabbing screenwriting service - granted screenwriting is just a portion of what the site is and there are benefits outside of the Script services offerings — MANY OF WHICH I AM GRATEFUL FOR — but there’s no doubt screenwriting is a huge portion of this community and it is what this thread is all about and until that portion is also democratized, we are just dealing with another service that’s ineffective.
It won’t be democratized until Writers’ time and effort is equal to the respect that producers and executives time and effort is given. In other words, Producers and executives are given all the time in the world, and all the excuses in the world, zero accountability, and the writers are just meant to standby, and that’s not acceptable.
The industry can most often move at a snail’s pace, because there’s only so much time in a day, and some just aren’t good at an overloaded bandwidth, but if parameters and expectations are set, (which is at the core of this thread) it will no doubt ease the process, the service, the pain, and FFS close this thread.
Laurie Ashbourne, you are a true pro. You say things well. Clearly. Effectively. With far less words than I use, too. :>). I will say that I think I'm better than average at reading between the lines, as a rule. Like me, you have been a real supporter of Stage 32, and I know that we both fully appreciate that certain PARTS of Stage 32 can have real benefit and value. Unlike me, you've also supported Stage 32 from their side of the aisle, as well, in the role of mentor, producer, executive, etc. So I do think that your particular voice is a resoundingly rock solid one, a very important one, and a voice that is, like mine, speaking up and out because there is simply a very real need to do so. Indeed, this is all about advocating for us -- the writers.
I have sensed your concerns, your frustrations, quietly move up the needle. Never to a boil, mind you, I don't think that's a component in your method(s). Your effectiveness comes through differently. Confidently. Assuredly. When you brought up the issue of Shopping Agreements not long ago, correctly indicating that these non-payment brand of agreements should not be looked upon as terrific landing points, or major accomplishments to be shooting for, I was reading between the lines and nodding my head, "Yes, 100% correct."
In your own way, you were advocating and informing the community, "No, folks, this is not really what you want to be shooting for. It's a baby step forward, sure, and, yes, be proud that somebody likes your material, but let's not get sucked in to the notion that this is something you really want to be doing. Last resort, yes. Short term, yes. Non-exclusive, absolutely. But it's not a paid option. It's not a job. It's a freebie."
Stage 32 is notoriously fantastic at celebrating each and every success story they can tout. I would say "big or small," but there's just not enough "big" for that statement to be appropriate and accurate. And especially when it comes to Stage 32's machination of their elusive and mysterious -- and still yet to be addressed -- OWA.
If there's one voice in the room here that Stage 32 should absolutely be listening to with two wide-open ears, hearing each and every word loud and clear... it is yours Laurie Ashbourne. I'm very glad you're here. -- DT
TO ALL: PLEASE READ THIS WITH ATTENTION, THIS MAY VERY WELL BE MY FINAL POST
I have to be very careful here. And I will be. It is very important that I share this information with you, and I must do it in such a manner where there is nobody named or even alluded to.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote about Independent Producing, and detailed that it's very, very challenging for most producers these days. I also mentioned that a producer had recently asked me directly for money.
What I did not mention in that early post, was that this producer was on the Stage 32 platform.
That's right. This person came to me directly via Stage 32 Script Services.
I did not previously know this producer. I bought four separate services with this producer. Based upon this producer's proven track record and interest in my projects, I ended up collaborating on a pair of my feature projects with this individual.
I cannot go into any specific details about what transpired other than to share what I have already shared. There was an ask for money, on more than one occasion, and it put me in a very uncomfortable and difficult position with this person. The only other bit of information I will share is that this individual also wanted to circumvent the Stage 32 platform entirely, and offered direct consulting services -- services which I neither needed or wanted. This person was supposed to be rolling up sleeves, and looking at producing projects together. Instead, all it was, was an attempt at a money grab.
Lastly, I have the ability to produce at least two other individuals -- at this moment -- who had nearly identical situations with this person.
As of yesterday, April 3, 2024 I want this community to know that...
I made Stage 32 fully aware of this situation via email.
Additionally, I also requested an in-person meeting with Stage 32 managing director, Amanda Toney, to discuss this very situation. As a first step.
As of today, as of April 4, 2024 at 1:15 PM PST -- I JUST CHECKED -- this producer, who shall remain nameless and unspecified, is still on the Stage 32 website, and fully available for anyone of us to hire on various Reads/Consults.
I find this to be beyond alarming and disturbing. It's unconscionable, it's irresponsible, probably negligent, and it truly calls into question...
What the fuck is going on at Stage 32?
Unfortunately, I can't tell you who this individual is. I wish I could.
I suggest that everybody print out this entire thread. Now.
Wow DT Houston , what a drag! I don't blame you for being alarmed and disturbed. Definitely a lot of red flags. I don't get it. Four S32 producers tried that nonsense on me. S32 deleted them tout de suite from the roster. This individual must have mondo credits (or something else).
Well, that sure is very interesting, Robin Gregory. I think it's quite appropriate to say that it all points to bigger issues, and a bigger picture, and far more questions.
If it's your platform, and it's your people, and you split the money... it is indeed your problem.
DT Houston OMG! Steve (from Toto) sounds like a GREAT guy! Such an awesome dude. I dig his ZEN, man! Wow! I was in junior high school when I first discovered TOTO's "Hold the LIne" back in 1979. Agreed. They were such a cool band, UNBELIEVABLY UNDER-RATED! I could listen to "Africa" forever!
This thread has taught me a lot. The information is so valuable that Stage 32 should reward Anthony, DT, Laurie, CJ, and many others who have provided details of their experiences that I consider lessons learned and all for free.
Hi everyone. Jumping in to address a few things and this will be my last comment here. The Stage 32 Team all work very hard and we all care deeply for you and our community. We do not work "lean" as a company of almost 30 people. We work hard to get you as many opportunities as possible and let me assure you, they are real. RB and Amanda do not have the time to address a lengthy thread that started several months ago bringing up issues we have already solved or are working on. I hope, personally, that if any of you or anyone in the community for that matter, have issues, suggestions, problems, or solutions - you come to me as the Director of Development Services or to anyone on the team- Nick, Emily, Sam, Pat and I are here for you. Always. Of course you are always welcome to talk about things in the lounge and the community, that's what it's here for, to be there for each other. But when comments start to wildly speculate and conflate issues, promote a significant amount of misinformation and become disrespectful, I will no longer engage. (I am only speaking for myself here.) If you weren't aware, the team and I have been discussing OWAs, and their processes internally for a while. We have recently reworked our communications and notification processes to be much more efficient and timely. If you haven't already seen the effects of that work I'm sure you will soon. We work very hard for all of you and we take pride in our work. Nick Phillips will be jumping on a Zoom next week in the Writers' Room to talk about OWAs. If you're interested, watch for the posting of the time and date in the Writers' Room Lounge. I hope you can join then. Thanks everyone.
And Niki H, I do not know you. I have never met you. I've never communicated with you even one time, in any shape, form or fashion. So I have no opinion of you or knowledge about you. None.
All said, I am going to push back very swiftly and very directly against your assertion that Stage 32 does not work "lean" as a company. Perhaps that is how you personally perceive things, but I will tell you that I was told directly, in no uncertain terms, in a cne-on-one, direct conversation, with a colleague of yours who sees it quite differently. In short, saying the company works "very lean" , and I quote, "You would be surprised how few full-time staff actually work at Stage 32."
And I really don't think employees say this type of thing just for the hell of it.
I found this person to be highly credible, whip smart, super kind, full of experience and talent, and the information was not shared in any sort of negative or derogatory manner, whatsoever. It was just a matter-of-fact, this is how it is exchange, during a great conversation.
And I want to be very clear on something with everyone here, but especially with all the apparently "not lean Stage 32 staffers." In January/February, I partnered-up on a feature film project of mine, Jeff Buckley, with A+ human and ace movie producer, Nick Phillips. This occurred before Nick became an employee of Stage 32.
When this OWA debacle began to take center stage here, when things began to stir up, I took great care to NOT have any communications with Nick about any of this bullshit. And my conversation regarding the "lean" nature of Stage 32 was certainly not a conversation I ever had with Nick. He's been at Stage 32 for a very brief time, and I doubt Nick would even have the capacity to even make any such assessment.
I am delighted to hear that Nick will be making some efforts on behalf of Stage 32 to address the OWA issues. I can think of no one better who might be able to help give the wholly ineffective system an actual rudder. I can assure you that Nick will listen to the Writers' Room members concerns, and do his very best. Can he help fix it? I have no f'in clue. I guess you guys will find out in due time.
Great producers like Nick are indeed problem solvers. They wear many hats. And that's a great start. Whether he was working for Stage 32 or just lending his expertise and knowledge to the platform on the side, as he's done for many years, I'd put all my chips on Nick before I put them on anyone else at Stage 32, including one Director of Development Services who would like you to believe that whole paragraph that she writes about above. (Yawn.)
And, no, Niki H . that's not DT Houston providing misinformation or being disrespectful, that's DT Houston telling it exactly how I fucking see it. Which I'm fully entitled to do. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much exactly what Richard "RB" preaches and does all the time. You know, take agency.Be the CEO of you.
And by the way, yes, I will be waiting for that phone call from Amanda Toney, so that we can have that sit down at the very busy, lots of employees Stage 32 corporate HQs, to discuss that very established producer who was fully all over your platform, seeking as many new customers as that person could possibly get, who attempted to jack money out of me, who didn't really have any interest in producing movies, and who damaged one of my projects in the process, as a result of his ineptitude and sole focus on money grabbing.
I think everybody here on this thread, and in this Writers' Room, is smart enough to know what's up and what's what.
"We work hard to get you as many opportunities as possible and let me assure you, they are real."
Niki H , please, that talk is cheaper than a bargain Anne Klein pantsuit at TJ Maxx. Nobody here wants "assurances" that things are real. We want the open transparency which will demonstrate that opportunities are real. Surely, you must have read enough of this lengthy thread to grasp that paramount, hammered-home, issue.
"RB and Amanda do not have the time to address a lengthy thread that started several months ago bringing up issues we have already solved or are working on."
Solved...? Really...? I'm sure everyone on this thread would love (!) to hear exactly what has been solved. So whenever that time feels right for you to re-engage Niki H, or maybe it's when you trot Nick out to be the new OWA fixer, like a Ray Donovan, I can assure you that there will be a captive audience waiting to hear all about that solvation.(I think I just made that word up.)
I , for one, absolutely love the word solved. It's also a mighty big word for only 6 letters. "Solved" is like a fully executed, satisfying screenplay. Beginning, middle and end. We did it. We finished it. Solved it. Time for a beer and a little pat on the back.
A sudden and unexpected document dump of OWA results literally overnight, and out of the blue, does not equate to a "solved" issue. It definitely equates to something, but I don't think anybody here quite understands exactly what that was all about. If there was an explanation, pardon me, but I missed it.
When I launched Script Revolution in 2016, I thought offering what the likes of InkTip and the Black List were doing for free would set the world on fire. Here was the first true searchable database were any writer could effectively build up an online portfolio, one that had a bio along with all their social media links, and to top it all off, it had a true do-no-damage rating system where people could upvote what they liked. Plus, it was open to any filmmaker too, so no begging for validation and having to buy dinners for the gatekeepers to even let you look at the material available.
People were repulsed. There was no exclusivity, no glitz or glamour. There was no promises of the top studios looking for scripts and claims that people should be preparing Oscar acceptance speeches. It was seen as muck raking at best with laughter and mockery mostly.
In nearly eight years, not a single media outlet has even mentioned Script Revolution. If you go to the likes of Reddit, DoneDealPro, or various Facebook groups, it is never mentioned in their FAQs or advice posts. The site has grown entirely by word of mouth, mainly stemming from communities like this one.
Within a couple of years of running ScriptRev, I became aware of how screenwriting competitions were mushrooming in number. I knew this because I was trying to keep a database of them all so my members could show off their accolades. I was alarmed at how much money and hope the average writer was putting into what was complete BS. So I made a public stand against.
I was dragged through the streets for doing that. There's still places I cannot go because I did that.
For over ten years now, I've blogged about putting craft before anything else. I've written extensive articles on what I've seen work and what I haven't seen work. I've shared a ton of insight into what I've experienced in terms of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
None of those blogs have been shared in the communities I dip into, while superficial nonsense and clickbait goes viral all the time.
I'm not trying to martyr myself here. I'm very happy about how things are going in the long term. I'm trying to paint a picture of what it's really like when you get real. It is not wanted by most. It shatters this collective dream that screenwriting is really all about waiting for that Cinderella moment where your fairy godmother pops up in the form of an opportunity and you get to the ball that is Hollywood.
There will be no cavalry for screenwriters until this culture of becoming rich and famous tomorrow and jetting off to tinsel town to walk the red carpet is done with. We are treated like suckers collectively because we act like suckers collectively. We are told that modest opportunities are once in a lifetime opportunities because it's what we want to hear. We are told to enter yet another season of mainly useless competitions not by the organisers but by our peers. I got into this in 2012 and, despite watching next to nobody succeed in the slightest, nothing has changed. NOTHING. I can go on Reddit now and guarantee that at least one of the top posts on r/screenwriting, in both question and top voted answers, is more or less identical to one a decade ago, not because the advice works but because it feels right.
If we want change it means we have to accept that problems both run both ways. I hate to say this, but that means actually lowering the bar significantly on the side of the average aspiring screenwriter. It means respecting that the 99% of the industry that's ignored and seeing opportunities within it as precious. It is only once we start to value it that we can expect more from it. Maybe then it won't just be seen as Hollywood or Hucksters by so many.
To me, the OWAs are representative of this dilemma that exists. Transparency is punished in this world, not because it reveals something bad, but because it creates comparison with those shilling snake oil. I know it because I've lived it.
Please don't see this rant as countering the rhetoric in any way. I want the same thing. I dream of the same thing. However, experience has taught me that we're in the situation we're in because, as a group, we treat this like a get rich quick scheme rather than a creative life goal. I hope that makes sense and I'm sorry to see I've somehow, in this thread, become the figurehead of everything I despise.
Some positive news to report about one of the recent OWA selections KEANU REEVES IS MY MUSE, MY SON IS A DRAGON. Author Phoenix Black has had a general meeting with the former head of Amazon Studios. Not the best possible outcome but a positive step nonetheless. It's the kind of thing we need to see more of coming out of the OWA process. The bad news here is that the meeting occured through the ISA rather than through the OWA process. It does however demonstrate the kind of result that is possible for OWA writers. Hopefully we'll start to see some of it happening here soon.
Laurie AshbourneCJ WalleyDT Houston - Thank you for your illuminating dialogue. Eye-opening, to be sure. And so generous of you to open up and share details. I think I speak for a lot of us.
As kismet would have it, this came across my inbox this morning from best-selling author, speaker, and business leader Simon Sinek, "If a movement is to have an impact, it must belong to those who join it—not those who lead it."
Sinek became famous for his people first approach to helping business leaders find their way to the hearts of the people they serve, but his genuine approach rings true for anyone. I highly recommend his books.
Hey Richard Buzzell. A couple key distinctions with a difference to circle.
1) ISA did not, at any time, ever choose to call their system of writing opportunities an Open Writing Assignment - "OWA."
2) Stage 32 did, from inception until present, make a calculated decision -- clearly -- to name their system of writing opportunities, "OWA," which was an obvious and misguided effort to portray these Stage 32 opportunities as ones akin to REAL OWAs, which are available only to REPRESENTED WRITERS who have agents and agencies, who field the true open assignment projects from studios and others. And, yes, there are REAL TRUE ASSIGNMENTS -- J-O-B-S -- to be given on these real OWAs.
"Bypass the studios."
"Go direct."
"We have the access right here."
You know what, Stage 32, I have no issue whatsoever with your "selling the sizzle of access." It's true, there is a ton of wonderful, useful access on this platform. And each of the loudest voices on this thread here, including mine, will be the first ones to tell you that we see that, we love that, and that it has bona fide value. Importance. Benefits.
On the flip side, there is also 100%sloppy town going on here. I'm going repeat it, like a good screenwriter might often do for dramatic effect from time to time...
There is 100% sloppy town going on here.
From...
Giving things a trulymisleading, deceptive, and inaccurate title, "OWA," to...
Not taking a more comprehensive approach to vetting "executives," some of whom appear to have very thin and questionable qualifications, far less than admirable ethics, and way below acceptable performance habits, to...
Having literally zero Fake OWA success stories whatsoever when it comes to the...
Option of scripts...
Purchase of scripts...
Or scripts moving forward...
In any fashion, with the...
Anonymous producers that Stage 32 personally assembles for their...
Fake OWA affair.
Indeed, I feel very comfortable and very confident in my assessment.
Niki H chimed in with the "solved and working on solving" tip.
Let's all hope that there's actually something substantial there, beneath the words.
Yes, thanks, Robin Gregory. And thanks for sharing your experiences, as well, with the execs who were less than stellar.
I want to share a bit of good news, just received. My semi-autobiographical feature comedy spec, The Gospel According To Flo, has been selected as a Quarterfinalist in The Script Lab's annual Free Screenplay Contest. As you might imagine, with anything free, especially a screenwriting contest, the numbers that pounce are tremendous.There were over 15K entries this year. So, as far as Quarterfinal finishes go, this one means more than most, on sheer numbers alone.
Script has had Top 5 finishes elsewhere. Been laying the groundwork for some key submissions to actor/singers to star.
Uh, the script is also 0 for 15 when it comes to those snazzy Stage 32 OWA things I've submitted on, with those anonymous producers in the shadows.
My middle name is Train, and I'll often enter contests under the name, Train Houston. Same dude.
The Gospel According To Flo
When a Black music biz exec turns up at the annual Family Reunion with his bubbly, fun-loving White girlfriend on his arm, long-held expectations are challenged and comedic sparks fly.
A music-centric ensemble comedy, I wrote it with Diana Ross or Patti LaBelle in mind to star as the Family's matriarch and music legend... who likes things just the way they've always been.
DT Houston That's so awesome! Congratulations! Wonderful to know Script Lab isn't cashing in on the contest, and truly showcasing. I love your title and concept. With your wicked sense of humor, it's gotta be a winner.
Robin Gregory Script Revolution seems writer centric, so I dig the concept. I wish I had known about Script Revolution earlier, but only learned of it from this thread. Sign up and posting scripts are free, which is wonderful, but I think I'm going to sign up for a paid membership, and they are very affordable, a real deal to put eyes on your script.
I have literally read this ENTIRE thread from start to finish- taking notes! Laurie and DT THANK YOU. Spot on with your observations. For example from Laurie: " No producer is going to hand creative selection for a serious opportunity to inexperienced readers" AND more importantly there has been NO mention of an OWA EVER actually landing ANY $$ for a writer!! This is EXACTLY what is meant by 'transparency.' Nikki chimed in several times to 'protect the brand' but NEVER answered this question AND NO MENTION of who these 'pros' actually are who are 'reading' our scripts. DT - you have an amazing ability to cut through the BS here- ST 32 does, indeed, dangle the 'carrots' Paramount, MAX, etc, etc - but oddly NO MENTION if they have EVER actually BOUGHT ANYTHING from any writer on this platform! That does, indeed, seem at best, more that a bit 'fishy.' (Actually, truth be told, it downright stinks.) RB and Amanda you have truly created a 'money machine' here. But the OWA's are NOT what you claim they are and that is just plain deceptive. I too engaged the services of a ST32 pro to 'fine tune' a script. It became, however, a money pit with no end in sight and escalating demands for $$ which I finally had to pull the plug on. And finally, Anthony Murphy, maybe share with us how you landed the pitch sessions that resulted in script requests? I know you staed that the ones through ST 32 were useless- I feel much the same way- and I have purchased MANY of the $35 pitches that led NO WHERE.
I too have learned quite a lot from this thread, so Laurie Ashbourne and CJ Walley, and many others who have added their contributions, both big and small, thank you.
Thanks, Anthony Murphy, re: the contest. Yeah, you only get 1 submission on the TSL Freebie, so you've gotta figure everybody is likely tossing in their Best Closer. :>)
Rick Sabino I said I was burned out on pitching a couple months ago after a "pro" who I thought I had got along with during the Skype was ugly towards me. It pissed me off; it still pisses me off. But on St. Paddy's and on the 24th I tried it again here on S32, and I posted this elsewhere, but here's what I did:
On previous pitches, I made the mistake of memorizing and reciting my whole two page written pitch for my Skype meetings; but on my last two pitches I used only the intro paragraphs, then stopped and simply spoke to the producers like I was telling a friend about my screenplay, and—Voila—both producers requested the script. Doing this also took away all the pressure, which made pitching enjoyable instead of stressful. As a matter of fact, the second pitch that resulted in a request ended with a Skype time of only 6:54.
The first producer is a multi-talented creative that produces, composes and writes books and screenplays, and he's worked with Floyd Mayweather Jr., so since the screenplay I'm peddling is a boxing script ... And the second producer was unlike any pitch I've given, for he had his production team with him to hear the pitch, and that was pretty cool.
Anthony, I'm a big fan of Script Revolution...and I use it and Stage 32 to see if anything I've written resonates with readers. (I've had better luck with SR and 32 than I've ever had at entering contests.)
"I have literally read this ENTIRE thread from start to finish- taking notes! Laurie and DT THANK YOU. Spot on with your observations. For example..."
Rick Sabino thank you for your post and mention. It's like I mentioned previously in the thread, I fully trust everyone who reads these posts to be able to determine for themselves their own conclusions, and to ponder many of the points which have been brought forth by myself, Laurie Ashbourne , CJ Walley , as well as others.
I can assure everyone, including all employed by Stage 32, that I don't have an ax to grind. As mentioned, since becoming a Stage 32 member in mid-November, 2023 -- not even 5 full months -- I benefitted tremendously with my own individual career efforts through my utilization of Stage 32 Script Services, and then engaging with individuals who responded to my work.
Stage 32 provided critical access. They offer a big foot on the floor, which keeps a 4 inch door opening from shutting on you, on me, on anyone looking to secure that important access.
But by providing the all-important access -- for a price, of course -- without question, there must also be a commitment to assume and provideinherent and important responsibility, quality control efforts. There is aduty to protect... not just to serve... and take money.
This is a very, very big issue with respect to this Stage 32 platform, and I sure hope that some serious efforts are already being considered to rectify many of the issues which have already been shared in this thread.
In business, "exposure," is only beneficial when it's tied in with positive publicity. In any other context, it's a word that you never your business to be associated with.
When the quality controls are not where they need to be, when the vetting process seems to be less than stellar, when individuals brought into the circle of the business are doing things they should not be doing... that's not a good thing. For any business. Whatever the business is.
Of course, the lion's share of this thread has been about the broken, deceptive, wholly ineffective, OWA money-stream, which is paraded about as the "lookey what we have here that nobody else has!" Stage 32 "benefit." (Most certainly, always implied, if not always stated explicitly.)
As a group, we should think long and hard about whether we want to continue drinking this Kool Aid offering. As currently mixed and served up quite chilled, with an impressively cute and enticing "FREE with Membership straw," my opinion is that this drink tastes like poo-poo. And it's bad for us. Even if it doesn't quite kill us... and only drains us. I'm not a fan of the word drain. Unless I'm out on the hardwood, with a very hot hand in 3-point land. Then, we can talk drain all day long. Or until I miss.
Stage 32, until such time that actual benefits can be demonstrated with respect to the Fake OWAs...
Until it becomes something more than a whole lotta lip service, and...
Pom-pom shaking, and...
We love you guys, keep at it, and...
Atta boys and atta girls...
I only see one entity benefitting...
And it's not RB's so-called "Creative Army" here...
It's Player #32. And the name on the back of that jersey...
Jim Boston Hey Jim. Thanks! I signed up for a subscription account at SR this morning and uploaded my script. There is quite a list of deals made on there, so thought I would give it a try, and the subscriptions are so affordable. I don't enter contests unless they are free or very cheap, for I've heard too many agents and producers state that they couldn't care less unless its AFF or Nicholl's, because it's just some contest reader's opinion.
AFF is the Austin Film Festival and definitely a placement or win there will get you noticed and the same with the Nicholls. Page and Sundance have been growing in recognition though along with a few others like our own Stage 32 contests and Screencraft. The more entries and better connected the judges are the more it will help your career. But do not discount small contests helping you -- they are motivators and can give you the psychological boost or strength to keep writing or improve.
Robin Gregory I'm impressed with SR. There's been a lot of successes there. Like L. Tom Deaver wrote, those are the top contests. I personally prefer to invest in pitches rather than contests, but the ones you named are all top contests that will get attention for even placing.
Re: Contests, there's up and downs to everything. Contests are no different. But instead of diving into that rabbit hole and giving various thoughts there...
I'd rather share with everybody a little slice of my own battle scarred writer's body and soul, and it starts off with a concise but impactful piece of advice that was kindly given to me by a generous guy, who also happens to be a top flight manager of writers and directors. This occurred about 2 years ago.
First I'll tell you what he said. And then I'll tell you why I needed it hear it.
"It's a game of attrition, DT. The only surefire way to never make it, is to stop. To quit. To walk away. You must stay in. You must keep going. You must not become part of the attrition."
He would go on to share some incredibly supportive words about my talents, and strongly encourage me to stay in and keep going. All words I appreciate today more than he could ever possibly know.
Truth is, shortly after I had this conversation with this manager, I framed the sentence. It's now a constant reminder which hangs above my desk in my office...
"You Must Not Become Part Of The Attrition."
Mr. Manager also shared several stories of writers and directors that he had stuck by for years and years, while they toiled away in relative obscurity. They couldn't sell anything. They didn't land any jobs. All seemed hopeless. And then...
It happened. It all changed. But each had hung in there. Each continued to write. Each never stopped. And this manager never stopped, either. He'd had very similar conversations with his clients, just as he was having with me. And he'd also seen very gifted, very talented people... quit. And never make it. Quitting was the dealbreaker.
I should also mention that this manager did not think that his repping me was the best move for either of us. And, although I didn't realize it at that moment in time, he was 100% correct. Clearly, I was at a low point. He knew better than to get into business with each other while I was where I was. In a way, I think I was looking to be rescued. But he knew I didn't need someone else to rescue me. I needed to listen to the sage advice he had so wisely given to me, and then I needed to pick myself up, get back on the tracks, and make sure I wasn't heading toward becoming part of the attrition.
It was an important day in my life. Both in my growth as a man, and, secondarily, as a writer.
7 years prior, after more than a few people had repped me and believed in me, after a lot of opportunities and close calls and major-type things that tend to change lives pretty quickly, my career wasn't where I wanted it to be, or thought it should be. I also wanted to start a family. That takes more money. So, without it being a "I quit" moment, I hit the pause button, put on a suit and tie (I do love dressing sharp), and worked in Pharma for roughly 6 years.
And I didn't write one single word during that period. Toward the end of that time, out of the blue, my wife looked at me and said, "Happy much?"
I had made a fair amount of money. I had done the right thing. Provided. All that. But with my better half's two words, we both knew it was time for me to take off the suit and get back to what I was supposed to be doing. Two weeks later, I was unemployed and writing new words. And happy.
I gave myself 1 year to get repped. One day before the 6th month mark, I was repped. And repped by a top manager, who was at the peak of his game when the spec script market was booming. He was not quite at that powerband anymore, but he was still a well-respected rep, who 8 out of 10 writers -- both repped or unrepped -- would be thrilled to have in your corner.
Well, it was pretty much the worst damn experience of my life. I fired him once. Because I had to. When he heard I was going to sign with an agent, whom he knew quite well, he pretty much begged me for a second chance. I ignored my very intelligent wife's crossed-arms and foot-stomping, "No way!" and I gave the guy another chance.
Uhhhh, listen to your wife! Or husband! They know! Things got no better. That second chance turned into me having material in the marketplace with 8-10 producers, who I knew of via verbal conversations, but I didn't actually have a Tracking Sheet. Meaning, I didn't really know -- on paper -- where the hell my submissions were. When I demanded a Tracking Sheet from Mr. Second Time Around The Block...
The dude who was supposed to be working for me, refused to provide it...
And quit.
Via TEXT. (lol!)
To my wife's credit, she refrained from ever saying, "I told you so."
But, she knew she didn't have to. Her raised eyebrow said plenty.
And she still let me sleep in the bed.
That's love.
Which brings me full circle to that wonderful manager and human being, who, two years ago, despite never repping me...
Told me the words I needed to hear. The words that kept me going. The words that made me get it together. The words that helped me move forward and not dwell on what I could not change.
To everyone here, if you want something, keep at it. Keep going. Keep writing.
DT Houston 100% I believe the "You Must Not Become Part Of The Attrition" wholeheartedly. I phrase it a little differently in boxing terms—You got to keep punching. Don't give up and just keep punching.
There's some positive news to report about the OWA process. According to a Stage32 blog post, writer Sean Malcolm had a meeting with BCDF Pictures regarding a script that was an OWA selection.
If and when Stage 32 holds a Writers' Room Zoom Meeting, I want everyone to know that I will be putting forth a simple proposal which revolves around Stage 32 not just continuing to provide pay-for-play access and services at every turn...
But actually funneling a little bit of that SKIN WE PAY back into the game and investing in this Writers' Room and the members, whom Stage 32 is always quick to point out, they champion and support.
It's not a complicated proposal. It's not an expensive proposal. It's a proposal which will, without question, benefit both parties. Short term and long term.
I also believe it's a proposal which, if accepted and acted upon, could go a very long way toward showing the Writers' Room Membership that Stage 32 is hella-serious about making substantive, positive changes...
DT Houston Next time you have a choice between an agent and a manager I hope you take the agent. Either way, you usually have to do most of the work yourself but most people will read a screenplay from a WGA Agent and that isn't the case with most Managers. Good luck either way.
Hey Dan Guardino. Well, these days, it's a real luxury if you're lucky enough to be in a position to have such a choice. Your point is well taken, though. Anyone can say, "I'm a manager." Not so true with a talent agent. At a certain level, when you're dealing with serious reps who have been working and repping talent for a period of time -- not brand new reps, just starting out -- the access to people and companies is largely the same. And agents and managers frequently operate in partnership, "sharing" clients, with each doing their different parts to help initiate and propel writers' careers to the next levels.
I would say that the proliferation of talent agents exiting agencies over the past decade or so -- maybe longer -- to become managers/producers, has totally TNT'd the line between agencies and management, anyway. Both reps primarily do the same thing, just in slightly different ways, goals, etc.Within the management ranks, I don't know what the exact percentage might be of former talent agents who are now managers, but it's definitely not low. And it's only going up.
I tell every newer writer I meet to pretty much forget about agents, as the Agency business model is not set to, "look for and break new writers." It's just not. By and large. Exceptions...? Sure. But, that great script you're working on right now, that you hope to put in front of eyeballs, stands a much better chance to get a champion from a Manager. And, most likely, that first champion you get on your side is going to be the Manager's assistant, or the Manager's intern, or Fido the company pooch, who decided he wants to produce movies, too! (Okay, maybe not, Fido.) And I'm not saying that finding a Manager to read your script is going to much easier than finding an Agent to read your script. There's not a big disparity there. It's all brutal. BUT managers deal with smaller numbers of clients and overall I think they take far more swings than agents. Agents tend to come in when most of the work has already been done, and that Manager is talking you up and telling the Agent, "This gal's f'in awesome. Whether her script sells or not, I don't know, but people are going to love her voice. We can get her working. And I think you'd be the perfect agent for her." And the agent says, "Okay, you never steer me wrong. I trust you. Send me the script. I'll read it this weekend."
That's pretty much how you get an agent these days.
So... write a fantastic script and do what you must to find some managers who think it's a fantastic script, too. And that includes looking at all the managers on Stage 32, which will cost you, of course, but at least you have that access point. I urge everybody to strongly consider that Stage 32 option. But do your homework, and know exactly who you are sending your work to...
DT Houston You are right that it would be difficult for a newer screenwriter to get an Agent to rep them. The only thing I know about Managers is what I have heard from other people. I know Managers used to get 15 percent but I heard a lot of them are now getting 10 percent which is all a WGA Agent can charge plus their out-of-pocket expenses to make a deal. I agree if a screenwriter wants a Manager they need a fantastic screenplay. However, most want to rep screenwriters who can write good screenplays regularly so the more screenplays someone has under their belt the better chance they have of getting one. I am not looking for a manager but if someone is you are writing they might want to consider trying to find one here and like you said check them out first. I am not a member of the writers’ room but I loved reading your posts and hope they make some of the changes that you suggested.
Thanks Dan Guardino. Glad that you were able to get some positive from this thread via the posts by myself and others. Re: the changes many of us hope will be forthcoming, I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. There was certainly no shortage of frank opinions and strong suggestions. And I think everybody can be on the same page there. It's time to figure it out.
** You will need to be a Writers' Room Member to attend this ZOOM Webcast on the OWA issues **
Nick Phillips
Executive Liaison/Producer at Stage 32/PBR Streetgang ♦ Producer
posted in Writers' Room (Members Only) 18 hours ago
Writers Room OWA Webcast | Thursday April 11th, NOON PST
Hey Writers Room Members, please join me for a Writers Room Webcast this Thursday April 11th at Noon PST, in which we will cover some of the questions and concerns that have been raised in the lounge thread regarding OWA's...
7 people like this
Anthony Murphy what is Stage 32's definition of "OWA"? Are writers here submitting spec scripts to solicitors and that is called "OWA?"
9 people like this
Good question, Anthony. I'm curious to see the data, metrics on this, how many scripts are submitted, how many rejected, how many make it, and then what happens after that (pass, option, purchase, and the platinum: got made)?
10 people like this
Dan MaxXx It's different than a studio's definition of an OWA, where "in house" writers are used. In the Stage 32 version, production companies contact S32 for a certain type of screenplay, i.e. sports dramas or westerns or horror; S32 then posts their version of an OWA in The Writers' Room, where members can submit for free their scripts for evaluation by S32 readers. Chosen screenplays are moved forward for consideration to the requesting production company.
4 people like this
Lindbergh E Hollingsworth I'm curious to learn the stats too.
9 people like this
I'm 1/13 in OWAs. Also curious about the percentage of pitches that lead to a script request. We all know our chances hover between "slim and none". I'd just like to know how slim, slim really is.
14 people like this
I am sure I won't get any likes for saying this but I will anyway. That is an interesting question. I hear about meetings and requests but it seems a sale or job offer would be rare. I wonder how many of those people are really looking for a screenplay and if they are they probably looking elsewhere as well. I wish everyone luck but it has to be considered a longshot so they should be doing other things in addition to doing this.
5 people like this
Dan Guardino What would you recommend, Dan, because I've about had it with pitching?
3 people like this
It says one submission only Anthony Murphy and wait with baited breath.
5 people like this
Mark Deuce Mark, I realize that its one submission per person per OWA, but my question is how many submissions on average are made to each OWA. In other words, how many members submit a script on average to OWAs? With over a million S32 members, is it hundreds or thousands of submissions per OWA. Of course, not all S32 members belong to The Writers' Room, so is it in the tens on average to OWAs?
4 people like this
Oh, gotcha. That is a great question Anthony Murphy
4 people like this
Good question.
2 people like this
Anthony Murphy Hi, we’ll there may be a million of us, but not everyone in this community is a screenwriter and not every screenwriter is part of The Writer’s Room.
3 people like this
Geoff Hall Hi, Geoff. I agree, and that's what I said three comments above, but what is it on average? 25? 100? 500? 1000?
6 people like this
I have 7 feature scripts, which I've submitted a total of 35 times (Some titles have won national competitions, so I'm aware of their merit.). Once all titles were submitted to various OWAs, I contacted S32 with the following question: "Since I've exhausted all my titles to OWA, isn't it pointless to continue to submit?" The Answer: "No, you should continue to submit. If not selected, it simply means that your script wasn't a perfect fit for what was desired." Then riddle me this, Batman?-- If the S32 readers come across a title they've already rejected, wouldn't they simply toss it to the side with the notion of "I read this already. We didn't pass it along to producers." ? Thus the process continues to repeat itself.... for all eternity.
Sincerely,
Clueless in Seattle
5 people like this
Any members of Stage 32 writers room actually received money from an OWA solicitation?
2 people like this
Dan MaxXx Can't say that I have.
2 people like this
Bill Brock Don't writers choose the producer they submit to?
9 people like this
Anthony Murphy I recommend writing lower-budget screenplays and contacting producers that make them directly. You can probably find some on the IMDb Pro. Also, you can try to attach a director who has several credits to one or more of your screenplays and use their credits and contacts to help market your screenplay.
5 people like this
Great question Anthony Murphy. But aren't there new execs and producers coming to S32 all the time? And if they aren't looking for new material, why else would they come here? To make $35/submission?
3 people like this
Dan MaxXx We both know it is probably pretty darn rare if it ever happens. I don’t submit to that but I have paid to pitch twice to see what it was like. A director passed on it. His credits were old so he was probably just trying to make some lunch money. The other one loved the screenplay but said she was going to pass on it because I didn’t have any credits on the IMDb which is not true. Also, my co-writer on that screenplay is Judy Norton. https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0003354/?ref_=instant_nm_1&q=Judy%20Norton.
14 people like this
I'll chime in with my experience and observations. I was the first to get an option from one of these OWAs way back when they first started. It was a no-pay option, not ideal but I made it short because of that (9 months). I had several meetings with the producers and they had just been in the trades for a similar deal. They had guaranteed financing for up to $5MM per project and they wanted to explore some name talent for my project, which would have taken it up to about $7MM. I was busy so I let them do their thing. The project they were on went through some serious snafus that took all of their focus, and long story shorter - even with all of its buzz, that project ended up quietly going to Shudder. So, when the nine months were up, I let the option go. And have had ZERO progress with countless other submissions -- there have been a lot.
My views on the OWAs is that they are free to WR members so they can't hurt, but as others have pointed out, they really are not OWAs in the true meaning. They are more like mini-contests and therefore the material is evaluated with the quality of a contest evaluation -- not necessarily fitting a mandate. I stopped putting my name on the covers because I was sure every time someone saw my name they just set it aside.
That said, the mandates are so extremely vague there's no telling what the true ask is.
3 people like this
Derek Reid sadly, the recent labor strikes revealed how low the salaries are for majority of writers & actors, and I cant believe Execs in similar career paths make much either. So I dont hate a salary show biz person soliciting just to stay afloat.
1 person likes this
So, my guess, 50-100 per OWA?
6 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne An excellent assessment, Laurie. Thank you, kindly, for shining some light. : )
4 people like this
Yeah, I appreciate your candor and assessment, Laurie Ashbourne. Thank you!
4 people like this
Robin Gregory Yes, Robin. This is true and I read each assignment description closely before submitting. Once a writer submits, a S32 reader reads it, then if worthy enough, will submit it to said producer. After having seven screenplays cover 35 submissions, I find it pointless to continue submitting. They've obviously seen all my work. Time to stop spinning wheels.
6 people like this
Wow... reading through this and based on my own experience with 'buying" a chance to pitch, and/or submitting to a few OWRs, seems the best way to go is to just use the computer to write the script. After that, focus on finding a way to know people on a personal level rather than an insipid computer monitor. I'm done with the faceless pitch. There's gotta be a more creative, more affordable way guys.
5 people like this
Thanks for your insight as usual Laurie Ashbourne. I would love to be so busy that I could let folks who gave me an option "do their thing.". The lesson? Always be working on something else. The OWA shouldn't be an end-all-be-all, but just part of the journey.
6 people like this
Bill Brock I feel your pain - I think my numbers are even larger - I've lost count TBH.
There definitely is a need for more transparency and I think that would alleviate much of the frustration and black hole feel of it all.
7 people like this
Martin Reese That's the reality of it. There are so many points along the way where a project can derail. Getting an option is nice, but depending on the players it doesn't always amount to much, (which is why you typically want option money). For the OWAs in the WR, writers really should go in with the expectations of a contest; in other words not all wins result in a film. If it advances, kudos, if it "wins" even more kudos. But the real celebration comes when the thing is on the screen.
4 people like this
I get it Laurie Ashbourne. That's why I'm in a class on film financing. Explore all options (legal of course. LOL!). Leave no stone unturned. It's a cliche and it's true. It's a marathon, not a sprint.
3 people like this
I hear what you are saying, Bill Brock, and I understand why you are stepping back from the platform. Now I'm wondering what advantage there is in being a WR member.
1 person likes this
Dan Guardino Thank you, Dan.
3 people like this
One thing that would be nice to know is if you didn't get selected, why not? For example there was an OWA I felt strongly I would be considered for. It didn't make it. The one I thought was a long-shot the same script got selected for. It's certainly interesting, but I still have gotten a lot more traction being part of this platform than just on my own.
3 people like this
Robin Gregory there is value in the room without the OWAs, it existed for years before they started. It's a much more closely knit group than the screenwriting lounge in general; I know many who have gone on to partner on projects, so the network is valuable (never discount that). Then of course there are the discounts and engagements with the guests that have in the past led to relationships and projects being requested.
4 people like this
Martin Reese Unfortunately that would be a can of worms, much like asking a contest why a reader didn't advance you. There is never going to be a world where it is that clear, BUT some more detail in the OWA descriptions and transparency in the process would alleviate a lot of writer anguish.
4 people like this
Oh yes Robin Gregory the Writers' Room has a lot of value. I agree Laurie Ashbourne that a little more detail in the OWA would go a long way. For example I submitted to an OWA that I saw as wanting horror with a female protagonist. I didn't get selected. Now looking at the comparables again maybe they were looking for something more grounded. In the future I will do a little more research before submitting to make sure I'm on the right track.
3 people like this
@Anthony Murphy - How many submissions per OWA? I count 113 unique names as OWA selections going back to start of September. Using Michael Eliot's success ratio of one out of thirteen, that would suggest there are about 1500 WR members. So for a broad request, 1000 submissions seems possible.
3 people like this
Thank you Laurie Ashbourne Martin Reese Richard Buzzell for walking me across the curiouser and curiouser rabbit hole.
2 people like this
Richard Buzzell Thank you, Richard.
2 people like this
So Richard Buzzell how do you that is divided up? There are 6 OWAs per session. Every script doesn't meet an OWA mandate. They certainly have put out OWAs in a session that I wouldn't submit too. That number is going to really vary per OWA.
2 people like this
Yes ^ I would be surprised if it averaged 500 per listing; I'm betting it's 200-300 average.
3 people like this
Going back to the end of June of this year there have been 144 writers for 226 OWA selections. That's the raw data. So what's the analysis of it?
6 people like this
Richard Buzzell I admire the tally work, but the OWAs have been around since early 2022. I doubt there is a set percentage that we can learn from (if there is it is a true contest with parameters such as 10 percent of entries advance to next round, which many contests do).
Someone from Stage 32 will have to weigh in, and I'm pretty sure it changes based on what they see works and doesn't. I'm certain it is not the same as it was when first implemented. But given the fact that each "request" is for something different and it's extremely unlikely that every writers room member enters each time, AND the number of members fluctuates on a monthly basis. There are thousands of members, we just don't see them all interacting.
The only way we would ever be able to figure it out is if the stats for each one were published and i really doubt that will happen (nor do I think it should be expected). There is also the likelihood that the person with the request varies in how many they want to see come through the filtering process.
I do think there could be more transparency in the reading process, and detail in the mandate/request (which I'm sure would also be a relief to the filtering process) but I've been saying that since the beginning.
4 people like this
I'm waiting for Bill Brock to weigh in on these numbers.
11 people like this
Richard Buzzell Brock decides to weigh in via an original screenplay scene.
INT. STAGE 32 OWA CONFERENCE ROOM - DAY
A long stretch of mahogany business table play host to its occupants. Brock, seated on one side, faces a platoon of ten OWA readers on the other. His fashion armor consists of a black vintage 1983 Members Only jacket, his personal FU to the Beverly Hills Establishment.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Good morning, Mr. Brock. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us. Collectively, my team and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your script. You possess an uncanny ability that pushed my team to turn several pages.
Brock shifts in his chair, offers a heavy sigh, possesses an uncanny ability to have heard it all before.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
Before we send your script off to the assigned producers, I'd like to ask you one question.
She points to his chair with the aid of her emerald-flavored, thousand dollar manicured index.
HEAD READER-IN -CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
What do you think sets you apart from the many content creatives who have occupied that very seat?
Brock's steely blue eyes drift down the table, note the ragtag team of skirts and suits. His powerful gaze, fortified by his patented stoicism, returns to HRIC Clarissa.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
Did you..... Did you hear the question?
Brock digs into his jacket pocket, retrieves a Taco Bell soft taco, a favored mainstay of the company's value menu. All eyes are glued to the fast food product as its rancid odor fills the air, indicating its three-day-old production time.
BROCK
This has been in my pocket for a few days... It's still good... You know?... Chemicals.
He takes a bite, chews with his mouth open. Team members exchange confused glances. HRIC Clarissa escapes Brock's disgusting, zero-star dining experience with a determined stare out the office window. Her long gaze, coupled with a soundtrack provided by Brock's saliva-drenched incisors.
She turns back to him, only to be met by a stream of molten cheddar cheese flowing down his chin. He puts out the fire by wiping it away with his jacket's exclusive band collar.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Do you plan on answering the question... sometime within the decade?
Brock drops the last bite of taco, scoops it up from the carpet, tosses it in his mouth, swallows. A chorus of moans and groans erupt from the team.
TEAM MEMBER DOBBS
That guy doesn't need a hit screenplay. He needs a freaking psychiatrist!
HRIC Clarrisa leans into Dobbs.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA
Dobbs, call security. Get him the hell out of here.
Dobbs rises, bolts to the door, opens it. With Dobbs' "luck of the Irish," a security guard stands a few paces away. He and the guard enter.
HEAD READER-IN-CHARGE CLARISSA (CONT'D)
(to the guard)
Here he is, Lew. He's all yours.
The guard approaches Brock.
SECURITY GUARD
Okay, pal. On your feet. Show's over.
A defiant Brock clings to his chair. The guard remedies the situation with the help of Mr. Night-Stick. He targets Brock's knuckles, shatters them with repeated blows. Brock screams like a screenwriter wannabe with no concrete credits to his name.
The guard lifts him from his chair, forces Brock's nose to kiss the table, cuffs him.
SECURITY GUARD (CONT'D)
(to Brock)
Let's make a deal. You be nice to me and I won't force feed your face to the pavement when we get outside.
The guard hauls Brock to the door.
BROCK
NO DEAL, PIG!!
The guard stops in his tracks, smirks at Brock.
SECURITY GUARD
Just what I wanted to hear. Enjoy your visit to the dentist.
Brock's witty response is to steal from Pacino's 1975 Epic, DOG DAY AFTERNOON.
BROCK
ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA!
ATTICA! ATTICA! ATTICA! REMEMBER ATTICA???!!!!
The guard shoves the cuffed Brock out the door, resulting in an unintended head butt to the far wall, rendering Brock unconscious and seeing stars....
But not the ones posing for selfies and signing autographs.
THE END.
A Brock's Monkey Production
4 people like this
"Brock screams like a screenwriter wannabe with no concrete credits to his name." Hilarious! Brooock-brock-brock-brock-brock... That's the sound of a cage full of thoroughly entertained hens.
5 people like this
I've seen OWA's where maybe 1 or 2 go through. I've seen others where 5 or 6 get through. It varies and you have to consider that at least a small percentage don't fit the minimum posted criteria. That being said, Stage32 "Moder" is very quick to post those scripts that make it to that next round, including the OWA #.
6 people like this
"You possess an uncanny ability that pushed my team to turn several pages." Am I mistaken or is this line some kind of satirical commentary?
4 people like this
Robin Gregory Hahahahahhaah! Thanks, Robin. Yeah, man. Just having some fun here! : )
5 people like this
Richard Buzzell Hey Rich? It's all 100% satirical. It's my brand of humor at DefCon 5!! Kinda shocked that you had to ask. I mean, come on? I'm beaten to a pulp by a Rent-a-Cop security guard. Plan on formatting it correctly through Final Draft, then making it an official post... for the greater good.... or for the fairly okay.... or for.... just me.
3 people like this
Haha Bill Brock. Wasn't expecting that.
4 people like this
Robin Gregory $35 x 10 is a pretty good pay for a 2 1/2 hour workday, even after S32 takes its cut. And the strike revealed how low industry salaries can be, so $35 to listen to an eight minute pitch probably sounds pretty good to many of them. I'd like to hang a shingle and do it.
5 people like this
I hear you, Anthony Murphy. Even if they're not really shopping for projects, they can give useful feedback, and keep the lights on.
5 people like this
Maurice Vaughan Neither was I, Maurice. Just intended to jot down a few fun lines and the damn thing took on a life of its own. Wish the Stage 32 system could have formatted it better, but you can't have everything. I must admit that I had a total blast writing it. : )
5 people like this
Anthony Murphy $3500 for 2.5 hours of listening to clapping seals with keyboards push their toilet paper scripts?!! Screw writing. From this day forward, I'm a tone-deaf executive who plans to multitask "CALL OF DUTY" on mute, while enduring scribes chewing my ear off during eight minute increments.
3 people like this
Whats disappointing is zero replies by Stage 32 management, zero comments ever by pay to pitch solicitors. There's like 10+ daily Moderators; not sure why this site needs so many.
11 people like this
Hey, Dan MaxXx. There are a lot of Moderators because there are so many people on Stage 32. And some of the Moderators have expertise about certain things, so if one Moderator doesn't know something (say about filmmaking), another Moderator might know.
12 people like this
Hey everyone! Lots here to be covered and unfortunately, the person who oversees OWAs is out of the office this week, so I don't have most of these numbers. I'll share what I can and what I do know as I prefer to be as transparent and upfront with our members as I can --
I don't have a number for the rate of meetings/options/etc. for OWAs, pitches, or any of our other services. But as always, you can see the success stories that people are comfortable sharing here (there are a number that have happened since I've been here that have asked to not be highlighted for privacy) -- https://www.stage32.com/scriptservices/success-stories
The number of submissions for OWAs varies wildly, and I unfortunately don't have a range I can give you. But for the person who guessed we have 1500 members for the Writers' Room, we have a MUCH larger number of members than that.
In terms of why you're not getting feedback on why a script wasn't chosen for an OWA -- Laurie's description of the OWAs on Stage 32 is fair. One big difference between an OWA and a screenwriting contest on Stage 32 is that a contest is open to any script in that genre/category and you're being judged against the other scripts submitted. With an OWA, you're first and foremost being judged on how well your script fits the specific kind of script that the company behind the OWA is looking for. Some comps/tones/specific genres are harder to nail than others. After that, it's a matter of who is best within the pool we have.
I know I didn't answer all of the points brought up, but I hope this at least helps. As always, you can email me at success@stage32.com and myself and the team will try to respond as best as we can as soon as we can. :)
8 people like this
Emily J Thank you, Emily.
3 people like this
I'm waiting for Bill Brock to weigh in on these new numbers revealed by Emily indicating way more than 1500 WR members. Would a high member count lend itself to a low repeat winner count? There are at least a dozen members who have been selected four or more times during the last five months.
4 people like this
Richard Buzzell I can't "weigh in" until my original short script, OPEN WRITING ASSIGNMENTS, is sold and they request a sequel. Meh, it's the nature of the business. No Big Whoop.
10 people like this
Hey all, I want to add a bit to what Emily said. For those that stopped applying to OWAs or those that are wondering if you should continue to submit. You should absolutely continue to submit to everything that you have a good polished script for that mandate. The requesters of our OWAs are always different and looking for different things, even when a mandate may sound similar. And the person who reads your script for one OWA may not be the same for another. And frankly - even if someone has read your script for one OWA they might not remember it, or they may see it in a new light when reading with a different lens. Also, if you're inclined to not include a title sheet like Laurie, that's totally fine. I just want to encourage everyone to keep doing everything you can. If you're putting limits on yourself for even submitting your work - that's on you. Set yourself up for the biggest chances of serendipity. Someone reads your script a dozen times in a row - who cares? Maybe it isn't right for exactly what the person is looking for. But if the 13th try is a great fit, it allows someone to think "Oh right! This script! I never thought of it like this. This totally fits!"
Is this a guarantee? No. Is it still hard? Yes. But at least take advantage of all the opportunities available. Because I guarantee you, others are. Work to give yourself the best chances for success!
5 people like this
Niki H well said, Niki.
7 people like this
This is like throwing spaghetti against the wall and you just hope some sticks. That is how most things you try in this screenwriting business work.
3 people like this
I eat my spaghetti.
7 people like this
Really. Such a waste of good spaghetti -- not to mention the clean up.
6 people like this
the process would be streamline quicker (and with pay) if Executives just hire writers from the Writer's room based on their specs as writing samples? The execs know what they want - so do a baker's dozen meeting of Stage 32 writers and hire/pay someone to write what they want.
7 people like this
Dan MaxXx that is the way OWAs work in the industry- typically the meeting is prefaced (or filtered) by the writers presenting their take, and then a decision is made. So, yes, makes perfect sense.
7 people like this
S32 OWAs are not really OWAs. That's part of the issue here. It's a misnomer. A OWA is when a producer or studio has a project that they own. It's in development. And they need a writer. They're looking to hire a writer for the project which they already own. And there's indeed a real assignment -- a paying job -- that goes to the writer -- or writing team -- that they select for the job.
It does not seem like S32 OWAs have producers with existing, owned projects, with actual assignments to offer. Rather, it seems like the producers are simply looking for material. Well, EVERY PRODUCER is looking for material. There's nothing special or extraordinary about a producer hoping to find a good script or two. There's no inherent anything to a producer "just looking."
"OWA" connotes that there's a job. An "assignment" attached, down the line, to all the submissions being requested/considered.
RB is clearly super great at what he does. There's indeed a "draw" to the OWA, which leads to the Writers' Room. Like Field of Dreams, RB built it and they've all come. Proof of concept!
But the OWA moniker is not reflective of what the submissions truly stand for. Or what ends up happening, as far as I can tell. I wish S32 called the opportunity something else besides "OWA."
7 people like this
And that's not to say it's not an opportunity. It is indeed an opportunity. It's just a different opportunity than an OWA.
7 people like this
Interesting point DT Houston. I think the discussion overall is what makes this platform great and I am sure the concerns will be taken into account. Like you said it's an opportunity. Will it pan out? Who knows really? This business is a rollercoaster ride. I have friends who have had deals ready to sign and the deal falls through for some reason. The key is always how many irons do you have in the fire? We can look at how many submitted and how many were selected, but in the end does it matter? If you submitted and didn't get selected nothing precludes you from submitting somewhere else. If you submitted and were selected nothing precludes you from submitting somewhere else. It ain't over until a deal is signed. Keep pushing. In my opinion you only fail if you quit.
7 people like this
The term OWAs is not used the same here as it is within the industry. I don't know if it is worth the effort or not but in this business, nobody knows what will pay off or when it might happen. I would say the odds here aren't that good but if you are already in the writers' room all it costs you is a few minutes of your time. Plus I would imagine some people read their scripts over to make sure they are written as well as humanly possible before submitting. That alone might make it worth doing.
4 people like this
Here's an end of year update on the OWA selection numbers over the last six months. With a last minute surge the lumpen inched ahead of the regulars taking 130 of the last 259 selections. Make of that what you will.
5 people like this
Richard Buzzell do you know how many stage 32 writers room members actually got paid-$$- money from OWA submissions/hired to write.
3 people like this
@ Dan MaxXx I'm glad to say $$ is at the bottom of my creative bucket list. Easy to say when unrepped and unsold - keeps the mind clear and happy to keep writing on! :-)
5 people like this
Dan MaxXx I have no idea but I bet not many got paid money or hired to write because the odds don’t change which are about one in 5,000.
4 people like this
To my knowledge no-one has cashed in on an OWA submission to this point.
4 people like this
I think it's more so for the practice of it, than getting picked. So, take it with a grain of salt.
5 people like this
Here's an update on the OWA selection numbers dating back to the end of last June. The regulars have fallen behind taking 150 of the last 314 selections. So a total of 203 different writers in that time frame. Looks like the Bill Brock thesis is still supported by the data but not quite as strongly as it was last year.
2 people like this
Anthony Murphy Richard Buzzell Very good average, if you ask me! Thank you.
6 people like this
Richard Buzzell Thanks, Rich, for the recent "shout-out." I've decided to steal your phrase, "The Bill Brock Thesis," and use it as the title of my next screenplay or the name of my new 80s tribute Punk band.
3 people like this
Robin Gregory I'm not sure what your comment means.
1 person likes this
Anthony Murphy I apologize for being obtuse. I was replying to your comment about producers making on the average "$35 x 10 is a pretty good pay for a 2 1/2 hour workday, even after S32 takes its cut." A pretty good average for them, right?
And to Richard's comment: since June, a total of 314 writers have been selected out of 1500 entries. That seems like a pretty good average for being selected.
But then there are bad averages that I didn't address.
Writers, such as you, Niki, Brock and others, have submitted a number of times and not been selected. Ah, but being selected doesn't mean getting your film gets made anyway. For none has gone that far. These averages seem to contradict and disprove the basic tenant that the more persistent you are (and willing to revise) the better your chances of being selected.
3 people like this
Robin Gregory Oh, I got you. I thought you were referring to my OP. I didn't mention in above posts that my work has been selected, but to clarify and for fairness sake to S32 and especially the Writer's Room, my screenplay, THE OLD MASTER, has so far been selected in three OWAs, so has moved forward to three production companies. Haven't heard anything yet, but we have our fingers crossed. We'll see. BTW I think I've submitted to a total of 7 or 8 OWAs, including two that I'm waiting to hear from.
4 people like this
Anthony Murphy Congratulations! I really feel that with every opportunity for exposure, we increase the chances of selling a script. It would be cool if 2 companies got into a bidding war over THE OLD MASTER. Ha! I wish you all the best.
3 people like this
Robin Gregory Thank you so much. And that's what I dig about the Writer's Room--it is a chance. I spent three days doing cold queries, and only had one company, Zero Gravity, request my script, so OWAs seem a good opportunity.in comparison. I might need a time machine to travel back to the 90s for a bidding war, but it sure would be nice if it happened.
3 people like this
You're very welcome, Anthony Murphy . Zero Gravity, that's incredible! I appreciate this super informative thread.
3 people like this
Robin Gregory Zero Gravity, which both reps and produces, is one of the few companies that still welcomes cold queries, so if you haven't tried them, they are writer friendly. FYI, Zero gravity, when requesting a script, warns that they get so many, because of their open query policy, that it will take months to hear back from them, if the writer ever does.
4 people like this
This has been a great thread Anthony Murphy. Glad you started it.
4 people like this
Leonardo Ramirez Thank you. I learned a lot from the comments.
4 people like this
That's great to know, Anthony Murphy . I'll keep that in mind. They're doing some super films. You must be excited.
4 people like this
Robin Gregory I didn't mean to suggest that ZG had done anything but request my script after a cold query.
4 people like this
That's still a big deal, Anthony Murphy. In a cool beans way...
4 people like this
Leonardo Ramirez Thank you, Leonardo.
3 people like this
Here's an update on the OWA selection data from the end of last June. There have been 377 selections shared among a total of 253 writers.
5 people like this
Whats the stat of writers receiving $ ? Richard Buzzell
4 people like this
Dan - Good question. I was wondering if anyone has been able to get a meeting as a result of an OWA. If anyone out there has obtained a meeting as a result of an OWA it would've great to hear about it.
7 people like this
Other than my option (and subsequent meetings) noted in my initial reply above, I am not aware of any other "results" -- at least none that have been announced.
6 people like this
Richard Buzzell Hey Rich! Awesome detective work. I've been selected OWA twice, which means my script had been forwarded to producers. My supernatural thriller, THE DRESS, was first requested in December 2023 under the "Producer seeks Addiction Features" banner and the second request was presented in February 2024 under "Producer seeks Murder Mystery Feature with Unique Structure." There has yet to be any follow-up or notes from either producer.
3 people like this
Dan MaxXx I doubt they will answer that question. I am sure it is about the same as hitting a hole in one or getting struck by lightning. And I a also pretty sure they won't agree or like me even saying that. lol
2 people like this
Dan Guardino someone must be paid, otherwise pitch services will not continue to make $; Customers will just move on to the next script service, to next group of pay-to-read execs soliciting.
4 people like this
Dan MaxXx I know but the odds are slim. I have never heard anyone say they sold a screenplay that way but I don't read every post here.
1 person likes this
I agree! I haven't optioned a script yet, and I have been on here a month! let's go back to Inktip.
6 people like this
Scarlett Fox This post is in reference to the free contests that call for scripts within the writers' room (the call them OWAs but they are mini contests only available to Writers' Room members). It takes a few months for them to even determine which scripts they choose to send for consideration, and then it is up to whomever they send them to, so it would never be decided within a month. NOTHING IN THIS INDUSTRY IS. Have you secured paid options on InkTip?
3 people like this
I'm still waiting to hear about some meetings that came out of the OWA process. Anyone out there have one to report?
5 people like this
In the Stage32 Success Stories lounge Jim Cushinery is reporting a couple of meetings from OWA's. Anyone else have a meeting to report?
4 people like this
Still waiting to hear word of my two OWA selections. It's been a month for one and 2 months for the other. Not holding my breath. Moving on....
3 people like this
Bill Brock Me either.
4 people like this
Dan Guardino How do you attach a director?
4 people like this
Anthony Murphy: After reading all the comments here, I think maybe we ought to rethink what Stage 32 is for. With over a million members, world-wide, there is no way one site can be all things to all people.
Here's what I notice ... Members can present their material and get feedback (rate a log-ling, etc.) from each other, and that's a good thing, sort of like the workshop ratings from other students. But, we're supposed to pay for "expert in the industry" feedback (which may or may not be helpful). Then there are classes and workshops on character arcs, 'how-to' create suspense, etc. with fees attached, of course. And people offering services to assist new writers. Mostly people try to get their scripts better polished, through re-writes and re-thinking story points. Then there are the pitches: what to say, how to say it, advice and practice session, with fee attached. The OWAs go a step further, but, realistically, believing that people with goo-gobs of money to make and invest in movies probably don't pay much attention to site where writers introduce themselves as beginners, or "I have a terrific script, now what do I do...."
Think about it. If you're a producers, star, director, investor, are you REALLY going to read 1500 scripts to find a diamond-script, when you can call your niece who has a friend who's an agent and pitches ideas to her 1500 a week? People can go blind reading that many scripts all the way through. And, what's the best way to "break into" the business? Schmooze...all business relationships are personal relationships. We've heard a thousand times, but how many people get to Hollywood and have the $$$ to schmooze famous people?
So, maybe, we'd be better off thinking of Stage 32 as a piecemeal graduate school as opposed to a film studies program, say, at UCLA. Here's the web-site for UCLA: https://registrar.ucla.edu/archives/fees-archive/annual-fees/film-and-te.... If you're over 30, and/or poor, you can't attend. What CAN you do? Get an agent. If you can't attract the attention of a bona fide agent, you probably can't get the attention of a producer through a reader. Or ... start your own production company. Do you have a few million dollars to spare?
What I think we should do is get like-level writers together via ZOOM and have frank discussions about the industry, our scripts, making our stories more commercial, etc. The best thing Stage 32 can do is get Spielberg, or Scorsese, or Stallone, or some other star who is actively looking for material to agree to review a list of log-lines/synopses and read two a month. THAT would make it more than a club for the remote, poor, and talented among us.
6 people like this
Don't despair if you don't get selected for an OWA! As is the case with Blacklist, Red List, International Screenwriting Competitions, Nicolls, Austin, etc. etc., the fact is 99% of working and produced screenwriters have never won or placed in any of these things. Find your own way and be fearless. Your success does not depend on "winning" anything or "placing" anywhere! I've been optioned three times, two of my screenplays are in active production and I have been hired (for pay) to write screenplays and pilots quite a few times. I HAVE NEVER PLACED OR WON ANYTHING IN MY LIFE! It can happen to you too...
5 people like this
You dont need millions to start a production company; all you need is a cellphone & physical labor. Get off the couch and learn how to tell stories with a camera. Thousands of storytellers on YT, TicTok, Twitch. They didnt wait for permission.
5 people like this
I would definitely say that you are in a much better place here in the WR than you would be sending out cold query letters on your own and/or with another service. You're certainly much farther down the road in terms of a potential career path than you would be under different circumstances. You're among people who genuinely give a shit, just know that, and that includes your fellow WR members and the Stage 32 team. We want to see results for you just as passionately as you do. And you're in a place where your work can be and is being seen by industry professionals, and positively received in many instances! In my time at Stage 32 so far, one of the data points that has stood out to me the most is the frequency with which scripts are requested in the OWA process, it is such a great thing to see and keeps me inspired and hopeful for all of the writers here. Obviously, one area in which there is frustration is the absolutely interminable length of time it takes for producers to get back to you, and i know this all to well myself, and since i know how much it sucks to wait I make it my mission to give feedback as quickly as possible. We endeavor to cut down that lag time in whatever way is in our power to do so. I've been there, this business moves at a tortuous crawl so much of the time, but then it can suddenly open up. It's hard to know when, but when it does you have to be ready and armed with a positive constructive attitude. I've been a producer and filmmaker for nearly 30 years. There are times where the highs are very high and the lows are pretty damn low. I've dealt with the sometimes glacial pace of this business, only to be disappointed some of those times. It makes you want to beat your head against the wall. In short, I've been knocked down, alot. Just keep in mind that a piece of good news is one email or phone call away, it can come at any time. And at S32 we want to see that good news come for as many writers as possible, it's literally what we wake up in the morning wanting to accomplish. Bottom line for me is that I'm still here, making my way in this business and, more importantly, so are you. And any way in which we can make this process more effective for our members, we are looking at. I know it sounds trite to say just keep on climbing, but it's the truth. I say it to myself every morning!
4 people like this
Nick Phillips Thanks for the encouragement to us, Nick. It means a lot coming from someone with such vast experience. Sometimes it does feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall just to get someone to look at your work; and maybe worse, I often feel like I'm writing for twenty something year old film school graduates that hate to read. Anyway, you just got to keep punching.
2 people like this
Jenean McBrearty Hi Jenean, and thank you for inviting me to your network. That's a great idea. I would love to participate in such a group.
6 people like this
Hi everyone! It seems this conversation gets kicked back up every so often and I get why. OWAs are a fantastic benefit to being a WR member. I won't rehash what I've already said about this in the past necessarily but I encourage you to scroll up and read because I think it's important. I understand the desire to draw a straight short line between an OWA entry and a project getting made or bought. We all know that 99% of the time it doesn't work like that. If you didn't know that, now you do! Statuses get checked, meetings are requested, dozens of emails and conversations are had, other partners come on board, etc. That takes time, patience and perseverance. I can tell you that each one of us working here has your back and we have the perseverance.
The industry is picking up and requests of all kinds are coming in.I can tell you that in the last 2 weeks, I know of at least 3 specific inquiries about OWA submissions from execs just about rights or script status.
The last thing I want to address is the mistaken belief that Stage 32 and/or the Writers' Room is all beginners. This is not true. One look at the people in this thread alone shows that. I consistently get executives calling me and telling me how thankful they are to work with Stage 32 specifically because we have the best writers. We do. Our community is made of people at all levels and career statuses. Our Writers' Room is filled with successful working writers - union and non-union.
5 people like this
Scarlett Fox Did you ever have any success at Inktip? All I ever saw was very low budget producers and film school grads. The S32 Writers Room is about the same cost, and I think a much better opportunity.
4 people like this
In the Writers' Room lounge Travis Seppala has reported that one OWA has resulted in talks with his agent.
7 people like this
"It could be the logline, the budget, number of scenes, shooting locations, amount of cast, and the list goes on" This is a direct quote from the rejection from letter (that is so poorly framed it is insulting). If these are parameters that the "readers" have why are they not provided with the OWA listing? It would save the months of evaluation process (among other things) that's for sure. That is my biggest complaint about the OWAs that no one seems willing to address. The listings are so vague it's a complete crap shoot.
6 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne excellent point. Other sites that host producers looking for scripts have guidelines for submissions - cast requirements (6 o 8), locations (1 or 2) etc. I have a few of the rejections, which are fine, but if I knew they wanted minimal locations or cast, I wouldn't have submitted in the first place, and you're right, save the readers a lot of time. Might be something they consider in OWA.
3 people like this
Laurie and Jerry's point are good ones but the main problem with the OWA's seems to be that everyone is competing for a participation ribbon. You get selected and then the ride is over. Enjoy your ribbon. That's all you get.
5 people like this
Hi all, I'm more than happy to address that complaint Laurie Ashbourne ! The point of sharing many reasons why your script could have been passed on is to remind everyone that there are a million reasons why someone doesn't connect with or become interested in a script. We are as specific in the OWAs as the person who asks us. If we added several other parameters and a script was passed on, would you still ask for more parameters? Or is it that people just want feedback or the specific reason why their script wasn't chosen? And let's say an OWA lists a budget, location and maximum number of characters, but you (as a whole, not you specifically) have a script that is "perfect" for it except it has a few more characters. Would you really not submit? At least 50% of people would. We do not, nor does the requesting executive/company, have the capacity to tell every single person who submits to an OWA why they were not selected. It's just not feasible.
I'll be very frank as well because I know everyone here in the Writers' Room can take it - this is part of learning about the industry. There just isn't enough time. People reading material do not have the time to give reasons. Especially if the reasons are "I didn't connect with it". As it is in all aspects of the creative world we are all going to her thousands of no's. And the majority of the time we never know why. Additionally, most of the time we never even hear back.
To address separately, the months long process for OWAs is no longer going to be months. The strikes drastically affected what we were able to do and we had a ton of material to get to executives as well as those executives had even more material to catch up on. The process moving forward will be much shorter.
To talk about the "participation ribbon" I want to say I disagree. But everyone may have different opinions on this. If you believe that getting your script in front of people who are currently producing work and looking for projects to develop is not worthwhile, that's fine. You don't need to submit. This is a long game. You getting your script in front of someone now may lead to something down the road. I know it's hard when there is no instant gratification, or even disappointment, but that's how networking and "knowing the right people" works.
As an aside, I don't know if this works for you or not, but actors are taught to forget an audition the second they walk out of the room. If there is interest, they'll be notified otherwise you have to keep moving forward and making progress. Once you put a script in someone else's hands to read, it's out of your control. The amount times an actor auditions for a specific casting director before they get a role can be dozens if not a hundred. It's just the same with writers. How many stories have you heard about a project being made start with someone reading a project that they weren't interested in at the time. In fact, John Graham talked about this several times on Wednesday's Webcast - go check it out if you missed it. https://www.stage32.com/webinars/The-Executive-Hour-with-John-Graham-Ben...
I do want everyone to also know we do hear you and hear your feedback in general. I'll look at that email you mention Laurie and see how I can improve it. We've recently done an overhaul on our communication processes as well as how we share the successes of all of you, and I know you'll see the fruits of that labor soon.
Feel free to disagree with me, agree, or continue to converse, I always love having a dialogue and I appreciate the conversations in here with you all. I obviously feel very strongly about this topic, as do all of you. And I care very strongly about the Writers' Room and all of you here in the community. I am always on your side.
5 people like this
Hi Niki H I understand the frustration, especially Laurie Ashbourne's. I think most writers want and need specific parameters for rejection. That way, we can hone in on areas for revision. To list all possibilities for any screenplay's rejection is not coverage. It's more like an article, book, or class.
6 people like this
Thanks for the reply, Niki. But it really DOESN'T address the vagaries. Quite simply because we are given the "mandate" of a genre and 3 comps as well as the need for the script to be up to industry standards and be WR members. Those are the filters we are told the "readers" use. By those measurements there would be no doubt far more scripts going to the requestor than they want, so there is clearly another filtering process -- one that is more akin to contests (which lets be honest, that's what these are), but the point is, we are not privy to that additional level of filtering.
And I use "readers" in quotes intentionally -- Who are these people? What are their qualifications? How much do they read of the script? If it is like most of the first round contest readers then it is minimal on all those fronts and even more of a waste of time.
If this is going to be a genuine process where a DECISION MAKER can do something with a script that fits a mandate, why on earth would that process not be as transparent as possible?
This is not about "it's not for me," we are all grown up enough to understand that. The majority of the scripts that fit the vague parameters given never get passed on to the decision maker that set the parameter, and instead a secret cove of readers are making the decision for them. Or if as eluded to; it is in the logline only, that should be shared with us, so that the loglines are given the TLC they need. Or better yet, just have a request for loglines.
It's a lovely part of being in the WR, but if it is not transparent and genuine (it's already not an OWA, by industry standards), then it does far more harm than good. I hope it gets adjusted somehow.
7 people like this
To Robin Gregory 's post and to clarify in as few words as possible, it's not that there should be specific feedback on rejections, it's that there should be SPECIFIC PARAMETERS ON SUBMISSION.
A true OWA is when there is a specific script/story that a production company wants to hear the writers' take on it before making a hiring decision. The writer prepares specifically for that mandate. If we're submitting to OWAs there needs to be specificity and transparency.
6 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne You are right it is not an OWA. It is not even close to one. People have a better chance of calling producers somewhere else and it doesn’t cost any money. I know the OWA is free for people in the WR but not for people that aren’t in the WR. Even if it was free I wouldn’t waste my time submitting to any of the producers there.
7 people like this
Ok, so to strip it down as much as possible, I'm seeing 2 main issues -
1. You don't feel the OWA process itself is transparent enough
2. The parameters are too vague
Let me know if that's correct. How do you propose we address the parameters issue? How many parameters do there need to be - what should be included? If one isn't specific enough should we not pass it along? You'd rather have fewer opportunities but they're more specific?
5 people like this
Also just want to add - that having more parameters on submission is not the same thing as knowing what parameters your script didn't meet. In case that is also an issue.
6 people like this
Here's a sample mandate from the ISA site. "US producer with access to studio space seeking genre features, preferably action or action centered. Budget range $3-8mm.
Star vehicles are preferable. Male or female leads. A strong hook is a MUST. They intend to sell in overseas territories as well as the domestic market. They are looking to build a small slate over the next few years."
3 people like this
Ok great! So that mandate compared to "Producer looking for action or action centered feature. Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate" What do the differences mean to you?
6 people like this
"Producer looking for action or action centered feature. Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate" is essentially a call for an action contest, so to submit to that (presuming your script is to industry standards and you are a member of the WR) there is no reason your script shouldn't be passed on to the requesting company for them to decide whether it aligns with what they are looking for.
- this is where the transparency issue comes in.
For instance, by drilling down to an example similar to what Richard posted, narrows that considerably. So there would be far fewer submissions, or at the very least more certain reasons why a script didn't fit the parameter. Much clearer and easier for everyone on both sides of the bar.
If some submitted an action film that was clearly a $50 million dollar film or one that was for a male lead on an entirely American premise it would be an easy filter to take it out of contention. By being this specific, there would more often than not, be fewer scripts to weed through, which would/should be a more targeted and better experience for everyone throughout the process.
Right now, there's no telling why the hundreds of action or action centered features with Comps- Upgrade, Snatch, Redstate did not advance -- was it because the requestor asked to be given the top 10% of submissions? Or only 5 submissions? Were they given a list of loglines to choose a handful from? No one knows. Moreover no one knows who is doing the filtering and their experience level (could they determine a budget range or market if that was a parameter?). If there is less to filter because of specificity -- there is less guesswork.
4 people like this
The OWA process is broken. It need to be reviewed and feedback from members needs to be incorporated. The founders and leaders of Stage 32 should take in what everyone has said. I have no idea if even get feedback on some of my submissions because they come months later and I get the same feedback no matter what I submit. Imagine what would have happened to companies like Costco or Amazon if they had not listened to their members.
3 people like this
Niki - Does the originator of an OWA have to pay to have Stage32 screen the submissions for them?
6 people like this
Thank you for the specifics Laurie that is helpful. It seems like most of everything really comes down to the actual process of OWAs and transparency and how the scripts get into the hands of the requester. I do understand the feedback about parameters though I don’t believe it would actually stop people from feeling like their script should have gotten through. I could be wrong. I am talking internally with the team about all of this and your feedback, that’s why I’m here talking to everyone. I hope some are not seeing this as pushback, as I am genuinely trying to get specific thoughts so I know what discussions to have internally to make changes.
Richard, no absolutely not there is no payment involved. People come to us because they trust Stage 32 and the breadth and talent of our writers. You.
8 people like this
Niki H I think you'll be surprised at the deliberation and due diligence serious writers put into submissions (for anything -- pitches, contests, consults etc.). I for one, put enormous amounts of due diligence into every single person I speak or submit my material to. if it is not a fit for any reason I don't do it, this can be anything from initials of the person instead of names to credits that are verifiable, to online complaints. I dig deep and every writer that consults with me or knows me reaches out to ask if a person or service is legit. Will you still get people who submit a drama for a family genre request? -- absolutely (but it will be far fewer) -- we can't cure the world, but we can stop the infection.
6 people like this
Niki - I have concerns about the lack of any success stories coming out of the OWA process. It makes me question how interested these companies are in sourcing material. It seems that they have very little skin in the game. On the ISA, companies have to screen submissions themselves. Here companies don't have to make much of any effort at all. I'm concerned that they might be in on the process only because it's a freebie.
8 people like this
I've been saying since I came to Stage 32 back in November that "OWA" should NOT be the title of these submissions. And I said it again when I gave Feedback to Stage 32 recently. Amanda and everybody else at Stage 32 know exactly what an OWA is. Yet the decision is made to put these out there as OWAs. I really don't get it. It's just dumb. And the parameters are lousy. Non-transparent. Fuzzy. Whatever you want to call it. I mean DEFINE IT DOWN and give more writers a BETTER OPPORTUNITY to submit EXACTLY what these anonymous producers/managers are looking for. It's not rocket science.
Although I've had some very solid success with multiple producers during my short time at Stage 32, I'll be honest, I'm about to say bye-bye to this Writers Room. OWAs are not worth the time. And they're not free. We pay $400+ a year to have access to those submissions. I can enter a lot of top tier competitions with that $400+ at places like Vail, Atlanta, Austin, ScreenCraft, etc, all places where my entries have netted high finishes and producer interest. Plus, for that $400 I'm spending in the Writers Room, I can put that toward 10 Ten Page Reads with Executives, and I'm quite confident a percentage of those reads will net me meetings. My batting average on 10 Page Reads is keeping me on the field, and well worth every $40 bucks spent.
OWAs...? There is no batting average. At all. And I say, no thanks.
I'm happy to talk with anyone at Stage 32 about this issue, or any other issue. And there are plenty of other issues, too. But I'll just bring up one.
WHO exactly is vetting the "producers" and "managers" who hear pitches and do reads on Stage 32...?
Are there SPECIFIC requirements for entry to be hearing pitches and giving notes to writers on Stage 32?
Here's why I ask: I took a flyer on a new face. A new "exec." He has ZERO credits. He has NOT been working in Film/TV, but I sort of liked his background/bio, and I had a particular project I thought might be a fit for his apparent "tastes" and his non-film/tv background. So I gave him a 10 Page Read. He read the whole script, and he requested a meeting. He's a cool guy. I liked him. A lot! He is, unfortunately, in my opinion, also completely unqualified to be listed as an "executive" or as a "producer" because he does not know what the "f" he is doing! Part of that evaluation comes from what his "notes" and "thoughts" were when it came to my script, but the bigger, glaring red flag came later, when...
He asked me to read a spec script of his that he had just finished. A First Draft, he called it. Based on his very limited and wonky notes on my script, I was curious to see what his "on the page" was going to look like.
Well, ladies and gentleman of the Writers' Room, to say I was shocked at what I saw would be a grave understatement. It was bad. I mean like Michael Jackson "Bad", with some leg kicks and Moonwalk all on it. And none of it any good/bad like MJ. It was BAD/BAD/BAD.
That was the end of my taking a flyer on any Executive/Producer/Manager that I don't know personally, or know of through the business. This experience instantly made me wonder about just how many other "executives/producers/managers" are wholly unqualified, making money doing reads and hearing pitches, and giving "notes and advice" to writers on this platform.
Final thing, by and large, on all the reads I've purchased via Stage 32 -- and I've done a fair amount -- the true pros, the former studio execs and the very established names, have always come through on time with flying colors, and it's been a total pleasure to have those meetings. Everyone else, it's kind of been bullshit. A crapshoot of lengthy delays and/or me cancelling or switching the reads to someone else. And, yes, I always extend extra time because I know the Stage 32 company line will be "these are very busy, busy people, and we have to understand that and be patient." And to that I say: and we pay good money, and nobody is forcing them to be on Stage 32. It's their choice to make themselves available for pitches, reads and consults. And Stage 32, you should do a much better job for YOUR WRITERS, and ensure that all of these "execs" will perform on time. And if they can't, if they're too busy with their day job, then maybe they shouldn't be here.
Sad to say it, but it's true, I'm over Stage 32 and looking to focus my time and efforts elsewhere.
5 people like this
It’s too bad stage 32 loses someone like DT.
4 people like this
Kind of you to say, Asmaa Jamil. Appreciate that.
You know, someone at Stage 32 told me that the company operates "very, very lean." As in, number of full-time employees is not large at all. Well, there's a LOT of components to an org like this. I'm not going to put 87 octane fuel in my car that requires 91 octane fuel. It won't run well.
5 people like this
I submiited to an OWA on Inktip (no pre-approval required - the "O" in OWA) and got a reply ONE YEAR later. Haven't done one since. Would be keen to hear of anyone who's been optioned, signed, or sold from an OWA.
7 people like this
I also have to agree with Richard Buzzell comment about the process of Stage 32 essentially doing the development groundwork for each and every production company/producer/manager who decides, "Hey, this is easy! Wait, so, I just say I'm looking for XYZ movie and Stage 32 will do all the work? I get 5-7 scripts sent to me. That's it. Awesome. I don't even need to hire that cute USC intern now."
I mean what producer wouldn't want to sit back and collect 5-7 scripts for doing nothing whatsoever? The days of Studio Production Deals are over, but for the big fish. Every independent producer I know, hey, they're searching for that next buck, that next job. It's not an easy time to be an indie producer, with nobody giving you a paycheck. (One hit me up for $ not long ago!) Writers, you are not the only ones trying to figure out how to pay for shit. Trust me on this.
Hey, wait a second, I'm a producer now, too. I'm partnered-up on feature projects with two former studio executives, and I'm also managing 2 writers, and I plan on producing their scripts, as well. I qualify! Where do I sign up for this free Stage 32 development services for my production and management company, BulletProof Train, LLC? I am ready.
Stage 32, you make it easy as pie for all of these producers to be UNSERIOUS. Richard Buzzell is absolutely correct: when there is no skin in the game, no blood, no sweat, and no tears, put towards the effort of finding material, reading through material, is it really any surprise there's basically been just one OWA which has resulted in a semi-deal with Laurie Ashbourne ? And that was like over 2 years ago, if I'm not mistaken. No, it's not surprising in the least.
It's a piece of cake to reject 5-7 scripts that someone else just handed off to you. You relied on someone else to decide for you. Where's the incentive factor? It's a total freebie. It's House F'ing Money. Maybe you really are looking for material. Maybe you're not. Maybe you have money to spend. Maybe you don't have a nickel. But if Stage 32 is going to let me collect 5-7 scripts and do all the work for me, fuck yeah, (I can cuss, RB does it all the fucking time) sure, I'll fucking say I'm looking for an Action Thriller or a Grounded Horror, or a Rom Com with a Happy Damn Ending.
Sign... me... up. Costs me nothing. And I have zero actual commitment. I'm dating a hot girl, and I'm not looking to get married. Just having a lotta fun. And she's a cheap -- check that -- free date. So, Amanda, Emily J, you've got my email, let's do it. I'm ready.
C'mon, let's get serious Stage 32. This has got to be the longest damn thread on the entire platform. There's a reason for that. It's because the entire OWA effort is broken, ineffective, and needs an overhaul like nobody's business.
1 OWA verifiable deal in 2-3 years is not a "success story." It's a distress call, is what it is.
RB, you're "one of us." You say it all the time. Well, as one of us, my guy, I think you need to be front and center in the process of fixing something that clearly needs fixing.
And by the way, I'm not just bitching to bitch. I'd also be quite happy to pitch in and lend my voice and ideas in an effort to actually help make this process better, and create REAL opportunities for all the writers here who work so hard at what they do, with their very real hopes and dreams of attaining success.
Nick Phillips, if you're poking around these parts, I will see you Sunday on the Zoom call.
(Yes, I'm really busting my hump trying to develop and produce feature films. And when I'm looking for material, I'm not window shopping -- I'm REALLY looking for material. With my own sweat equity.). -- DT
6 people like this
Niki H A lot of what is being said here is very disturbing. My questions are simple. Has a writer ever sold a script through a Stage 32 OWA? And if so, how many deals through Stage 32 OWAs have been made? Thank you.
7 people like this
There’s definitely opportunity to offer a premium service that decision-makers pay for. It’s been discussed by other services as well. I know the guys at the gauntlet/Script hop have said that their ultimate goal is to make it a service that the industry people pay for and not the writer. Which let’s face it that’s what it should be because Writers are getting raped for money constantly and that’s where all of this, sort of frustration comes from.
It’s not exclusive to Stage 32. It’s every service out there when they charge money, whether it be for a contest or consultation or whatever, there’s always the possibility that they’re only in it for the money or as in the reference here, there’s no skin in the game.
There are plenty of industry, databases and services that they are accustomed to paying for — they pay for premium listings through Variety, tracking boards etc. that comes with the territory and there is no reason there shouldn’t be one for Writers or any creative above the line for that matter, but that’s not why we’re here. For the reference to the gauntlet and how they will be able to justify it, is they are providing the feedback/scores and breakdowns that their vetted working readers (readers who hold jobs getting paid to read for studios) provide so it fits more naturally into their business model, but there is definitely a massive need to elevate the transparency of whether people, requesting scripts reviewing scripts, reading, scripts, consulting on scripts are doing it to educate the writers versus looking for material. That's my huge frustration. I am a working writer and producer, I don't need an out of work 20 year old's opinion.
Every time I speak with someone through a premium service, they immediately assume they’re here to educate the writers and have no intention or ability to do anything with the material— I’ve even had people on the executive roster hit me up for work in the past, so when I see them offering services, it doesn’t sit quite right.
To have a mass announcement that hundreds of OWAs advanced magically in one week for requests that span, God knows how long, raises enormous eyebrows, because who the hell read those who suddenly open those floodgates I know for a fact, it wasn’t the roster of readers that do the contest reads or the industry coverage that is not executive specific. In two days time I got more than 30 emails about OWAs. The first round that came all at once was "our readers are hard at work and will update you soon." The very next day was "Thank you for your submission! We really enjoyed it... Unfortunately blah blah!. And yes, there are that many exclamation marks in the form reply.
I am in a unique position where because of the work I do, I literally have a script that fits every mandate. That, and because the mandates are so 'effin vague it's not hard to do. To have the floodgates of emails that clean out a backlog screams AI.
It’s like here’s our quarterfinalist for six months worth of OWAs — and we all know that that is how contests operate and that’s what we have here anonymous contests, anonymous processes and frankly nothing comes of it. Just like contests. Most contest scripts that are winners don’t get made or sold, and frankly shouldn’t— It’s a different read for a different process - huge distinction.
3 people like this
"To have a mass announcement that hundreds of OWAs advanced magically in one week for requests that span, God knows how long, raises enormous eyebrows, because who the hell read those who suddenly open those floodgates I know for a fact, it wasn’t the roster of readers that do the contest reads or the industry coverage that is not executive specific. In two days time I got more than 30 emails about OWAs." -- Laurie Ashbourne, my thoughts exactly. If the desired effect of all this was to wave a big, feel-good flag at how great this all was, it also simultaneously shined a LAPD Helicopter's NightSun Light down upon the problems. And I would say exactly what I've said here and above whether I was winning, losing, or drawing.
2 people like this
The OWA here is just a contest. Screenplays get made because the screenwriter or their Agent knows someone. I like being here because I like communicating with other screenwriters but I hate them trying to sell me the services they offer so their emails go directly into my spam folder.
3 people like this
Consider a "WR Members Advisory Group." There's plenty of folks with some experience and POVs which could he helpful in offering suggestions for change. For the better. In a constructive way. I don't know everybody here, but I know enough people to know that getting a member think tank together would likely not be too difficult. Writers that come to my mind...
Laurie Ashbourne (A multi-hyphenate force. Look her up.)
CJ Walley (A Brit who puts shit into action, whether it's his own gritty projects, or creating SCRIPT REVOLUTION.)
Francisco Castro (Has been staffed, and has smart/interesting ideas re: diversity. And he just nailed like his first 4 OWAs yesterday. What the hell took so long, FC?)
Michael Elliot ("Seasoned" and, yes, often snarky(!), but one helluva talented dude who I'd love to see get his well-deserved flowers... with a great Vietnam script that's been abused and loved in unfair measures.)
Stanton Rabin (a former WMA & New Line story reader and ace analyst, who also happens to pen books and Win prestigious contests with multiple specs. Has probably read more scripts than just about anybody on Stage 32. Also loves baseball and horse racing. I'll bet she cooks a mean lasanga, too. I am hungry.)
Anthony Murphy (you started this epic thread, you're in.)
Maurice Vaughn (the "MVP" -- "Most Visible Person" on all of Stage 32. Mo, you're the biggest Pom-Pom thrusting cheerleader and ray of positivity on the entire damn platform. And I hear you write some tight Horror action, to boot. I'd be remiss not to toss your name into the collective hat.)
DT Houston (No one will ever outwork me. And I don't suck at what I do. My three-point jumper and still fairly-wicked crossover dribble might not help fix the OWA sitch, but, hey, ya never know. They've served me well.)
Go ILLINOIS -- slay that UCON giant...
5 people like this
I'd say that a big issue is transparency... you get an email saying "congrats, it's in the mix" and then a vague statement saying no. Who's rejecting it?
If it's the gatekeeper on S32, wouldn't it be helpful to know why? If it's a wrong fit, whatever, but knowing that can help you focus your submissions better.
if it's the Prod Co, then it's a shit happens moment.
8 people like this
Let’s say I am an independent producer (which I am BTW - so the following is based in reality), who suddenly has the ability to get a buddy road trip film into production — quickly —whether that be financial reasons, or star reasons, or location reasons; whatever. So I come to Stage 32 Writers’ room and say, “put a call out for a road trip, buddy comedy in the vein of Plains, Trains and Automobiles, Due Date, Identity, Theft.” Somewhat vague, but still far more specific than what most of what we see in the listings due to the premise. Here's why it's not specific enough and why the process isn't working:
I don’t specify what the road trip entails, i.e. is it a specific type of vehicle? Is it a specific type of star? is it a specific budget? Does it have specific thematic value?
The way the process works now, that request seems to go on a long list of requests that will then be listed during a two week cycle sometime in the future, 200 people submit through the Writers room portal to my request that I made a month or so ago - some random room of whatever qualification people, look at the two hundred submissions and it takes them a month, then they come to me and say I’ve got 195 out of 200 submissions that fit your request. How can we narrow this down for you? Depending on what my reason for the request is, meaning is it a cast situation? Is it a financial situation? Is it a premise situation? I give them more specifics -- they go back through the 195, because let’s face it, if you can read a mandate you know if your script fits it or not, and quite frankly I am sure far more fit the mandate then the requester is being told.
So I, as the independent producer requesting this buddy comedy say, “OK give me one that has a male and a female for talent, and the vehicle they are traveling in needs to be an electric vehicle, super specific — but it’s gonna take the readers another month to go through those 195 out of 200 and I am putting all creative selection control in the hands of this anonymous evaluation process, but in good faith I say give me the top 3 that you think I will like — by the time they send me three that fit my mandate, I read them and meet with the writers to see if they are people that I can make a deal with... the money or whatever resources that I had to make the movie four, five, six months ago, isn’t there anymore because the material didn’t come in during the window that I had and it went to another project. This is the framework we are dealing with.
A true OWA would cut to the chase, put the call out immediately and take pitches for the specific mandate or maybe even short treatments.
So it’s no wonder that nothing comes of these.4 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne "Every time I speak with someone through a premium service, they immediately assume they’re here to educate the writers and have no intention or ability to do anything with the material."
Agree, S32 needs to stop saying this Exec is "looking for or seeking" which implies they're after projects to develop, and should say "can offer coverage on" or similar. Like us, many are also hustling and some are trying to sell their writing and projects just like we are.
[EDIT To clarify, this comment was in reference to Script Services.]
3 people like this
I don't believe Stage 32 OWA is offering coverage. I think it is just a place where people in the Writers' Room can submit screenplays. The screenwriter doesn't know who the Reader is or who the Producer is. It's a shot in the dark at best but screenwriting is a tournament career anyway so maybe it is worth submitting but I doubt it.
5 people like this
There's definitely no coverage on the OWAs -- nor should there be. I don't think anyone wants that. And absolutely it is a long game -- anyone who thinks there is a short cut is in for a rude awakening. Even if a script gets optioned, or somehow greenlit, there are many things that can stop a film from getting made from it.
The entire point is, the process of the OWAs is far more frustrating than its worth. It could be an effective premium service but it would need a complete overhaul.
8 people like this
I have five open OWAs, the first of which was 0139, way back before the strike, but not moved forward until after the strike. About a week and a half ago, S32 sent emails to all writers that have open OWAs with producers, and said that the pros were backed up in their reading because of the strike, but that S32 would keep following up with them. My last two OWAs were just announced this past week, 0252 and 0261. On the 0139 OWA, S32 informed me that the producer was Go Productions, but revealed none of the other four producers. I would like to know who has my screenplay and check out their IMDBs, because if they all pass, then who passed, the production companies that were never identified to me? You got to admit, that doesn't sound right. I also did two pitches last week, and both producers requested the script. The pitches feel more real because I met the people via Skype and checked out their IMDB, so S32 put a face on these OWA producers. Ultimately, both the pitches and the OWAs come down to producers reading the script and wanting to meet or not; but you know, I tell myself, at least my script is getting read, and that's more of a chance than cold queries, which usually don't even get answered. Like I stated somewhere above, I spent three days doing cold queries and got one request from Zero Gravity, but have heard nothing since, because ZG is so inundated with submissions, they probably haven't read it yet. Living on the east coast, I don't know a better way than S32 pitches and OWAs, no matter how long the odds, but the odds are long for those living in LA as well, even if proximity allows an advantage, for it all comes down to whether the producer loves what is read or not. I appreciate the opportunity S32 affords me, but I hope that RB and the S32 Staff listen and implement some of the very good suggestions on improving OWAs in this thread, especially those made by Richard Buzzell, Laurie Ashborne, and DT Houston. Happy Easter to everyone.
5 people like this
And when there's a thread like this one, where's there's a hearty back and forth about why something on the platform is NOT working, it's quite apparent that the Stage 32 cheerleading brigade, and/or involvement squad, essentially drops off to be crickets. IMO, that's also not a good look. No disrespect to you Niki H , but when you're the lone S32 quasi-voice in the room, with an occasional post by @Emily J, yeah, that's just not really sufficient.
You can't just "Way to go, Creative Army!" all day every day and champion each and every minor -- and more often than not -- insignificant Shopping Agreement, and then fail to participate in a meaningful dialogue when it's not rah-rah-rah time. That's not leadership. That's selective association.
To me, it feels like a "Do Not Engage" policy, which, if correct, is just a shame because everybody here simply wants something that works. And I think we all deserve something that works.
Unless Stage 32 can incorporate a better system, I won't be coming back. And, yes, I realize I'm just one person, but if you get enough "one persons" who feel similarly, this Writers' Room will become depleted. Writers have many choices these days. There's no shortage of choices.
6 people like this
Hey, DT Houston. Engaging in meaningful dialogue is important, but keep in mind it's the weekend and there's a holiday tomorrow, and the Stage 32 Team is handling a lot of things with the platform, so you might not hear back from them right away. From Niki's comments, it sounds like Stage 32 is taking this topic seriously. Thanks for the mention.
4 people like this
This is a very loooooong standing thread Maurice Vaughan. A well-documented issue. And my comments are most certainly not directed at a weekend fix. Or at an immediate response per this thread. I think that's pretty clear. But it is nice to see you on this thread. :>)
4 people like this
Cool, DT Houston. I can tell you and others who commented want to see Stage 32 continue to get better. And go UConn! Just kidding. :D MVP. "Most Visible Person." I like that.
5 people like this
DT Houston I appreciate the fact that you want to see some changes and I hope they take your suggestions seriously. I tried it for free for one month. I concluded it was mainly for aspiring screenwriters who are trying to break into the business or people who want to tell people how successful they are so I didn’t see any reason for me to pay to be in the Writers’ Room. Like you, I’m just one person but believe me, there are enough wannabe screenwriters who will keep using these kinds of services. Personally, the only money I ever spent on screenwriting was to purchase a how-to book and a cheap software program to write my screenplays. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your comments and again I hope they consider your suggestions.
7 people like this
Hey Dan Guardino. Appreciate that. There's a wide range of writers in this room -- and also on the platform itself. From brand new aspiring writers, to working writers with lots of experience, to most points in-between. And what I try to remember as a member of this collective, is that everybody here has the potential to become successful, irrespective of where they currently are on their journey. Without question, Stage 32 has value. I want to emphasize that I'm not anti-Stage 32 at all. This place has actually been quite beneficial for me, personally. I believe it's a place that can help us all unlock certain potentials, improve our craft, and also provide critical pathways of access. And like you, Dan, I hope that any and all good suggestions towards improvement will ultimately spur better days and ways ahead for The Room.
8 people like this
Writing to let you know I haven't disappeared. There's a lot still for me to read and digest after my last bit and I haven't had time yet. I also want to let you know that we have been discussing the OWAs and all aspects of them internally. Promise I'll be back to engage again and I hope you know I am taking all of your thoughts seriously!
2 people like this
Thank you Niki.
1 person likes this
Niki H Thank you.
6 people like this
Just got this email from S32:
Hi Anthony,
Congratulations! THE OLD MASTER is one of the top scripts moving forward for consideration and will be submitted to a Producer for Open Writing Assignment 0276.
Once we submit your script feedback from the executive may still take some time. but we' continue to follow up on your behalf and be your advocate in this process.
In the meantime, stay connected!
This is a huge accomplishment, so join us in celebrating your work! Head over to the private Writers' Room lounge to share your excitement with us. Additionally, we will be announcing the scripts we are submitting in our Wednesday writers Room executive webcast and in our newsletter.
Congratulations again and please don't hesitate to reach out to us a writersroom@stage32.com if you nave any questions.
Cheers,
The Stage 32 Team
This is now the 6th open OWA for THE OLD MASTER. I submitted for 0276 on 02/06/2024, so less than a two month turn around on this OWA.
6 people like this
That's good news on a couple fronts, Anthony. As you mentioned previously, and while we're (hopefully) fixing the process, it would be great to know where our scripts go when they do get passed on (it's actually our right to know, and it's not like we are asking for contact information). I have a handful that are out in the OWA ether that I've lost track of over the years. At least one of which I am now producing myself, so it would be nice to know whose inbox it went to.
3 people like this
Congratulations to you, Anthony, on scoring with "The Old Master!" Here's to much more success!
2 people like this
Congratulations, Anthony Murphy!
2 people like this
Congratulations Anthony Murphy Huzzah, sir. I wish you the best in your endeavours.
2 people like this
Congrats Anthony.
5 people like this
Asmaa Jamil Geoff Hall Maurice Vaughan Laurie Ashbourne You guys, thank you so much. Laurie, it would just make them more real. As I stated above, S32 should put a name on the OWA production companies, at least after you're selected.
1 person likes this
Jim Boston Thank you, Jim.
1 person likes this
You're welcome, Anthony Murphy.
4 people like this
Congrats, Anthony. Happy for you!
3 people like this
DT Houston Thank you, DT.
7 people like this
You guys are waiting months? All the material I submit gets rejected in days. Up your game.
3 people like this
Woohoo! Anthony Murphy . Great to hear. Congratulations! Would love to see script-to-screen.
5 people like this
DT!! I wondered where you went. Way to return with a flame thrower (they're fantastic in combat). Thanks for the kind words about me (including that I'm snarky which I consider a compliment) and "Nobody's Heroes". True, the story was maligned for years but once it did well at AFF, everything changed. Now, I have to confess, it's done exceedingly well on another platform. I'm in conversations with two production companies about the project, plus there's increased interest from major agents and managers. Not that it can't happen here but based on my experiences, for me it seems less likely. Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that Stage 32 needs to do a better job vetting these professionals. Case in point. Last fall, I pitched my Romantic Drama to a female producer. She asked for the script. Months rolled by and I totally forgot about it. Then, on Feb 20, I got a Stage 32 email that said "congratulations, Pauline Producer wants to meet you". Really? So, I immediately emailed Pauline, told her I was excited about that prospect of working with her. Apparently I should have used some linguistic viagra because she hasn't been excited enough to respond 42 days later. I asked Stage 32 to nudge her. They told me to wait another few weeks. Truthfully, if I were in charge I'd tell Pauline she's cut off from access to Stage 32 members until she develops enough manners to treat us with more like professionals than plebes.. Now, I may snarkily have cut off of nose to spite my face but honestly, I'm way pass caring.
3 people like this
BRAVO, ANTHONY! "We now take you to the last 10 seconds of the film, ROBOCOP." --
OLD MAN BOSS
Nice shootin,' son. What's your name?
ROBOCOP
Murphy.
4 people like this
Bill Brock Robin Gregory Thank you both. It's kind of you. Robin, wouldn't that b nice. Love your humor, Bill.
7 people like this
Dear Snarky, uh, I mean Michael Elliott. Yes, intended as a compliment, indeed. Happy to hear that Nobody's Heroes has found its groove and supporters. So well deserved!
I think Mike brings up an excellent point with the story he shared regarding the producer. There should be accountability, responsibility, and expectation criteria to be met by all of these anonymous Producers that Stage 32 brings in and dangles as the proverbial carrots before this Writers' Room. And not just cursory lip service at the onset, either, when a Producer comes on board. But ONGOING expectations to be met and adhered to.
This anonymous bullshit is a joke. Writers deserve to know TO WHOM their material may be going to, what credits they have, what they're looking for, etc. TRANSPARENCY.
I've thought about this whole "OWA" mess -- and that's really what it is, an unproductive, non-fruit bearing, non jobs-producing mess -- over the past couple days, and my realizations became very clear. I'll share, because that's what I do...
1) The Money Stream IS this Writers' Room. Period. Full stop. As Arianna Grande sings, "Thank you. Next."
2) The Anonymous Producers, who get to be involved in this game, with no skin. without having to do shit, or prove anything, or provide anything to anyone at any point, represent those proverbial carrots being dangled to Writers' Room members as the "benefit," the "hope," the "assignment," that you too can be in the running for. Now, please just click here. $40 bucks a month, that's right.
3) If #2 is not FREE, those Producers, by and large, will not participate. Remember those little discy things, CDs...? Yeah, neither does anyone else. When music became available for free, you were never going to put that toothpaste back in that tube. As such, why would Producers ever want to consider paying-to-play to be involved with Stage 32's misrepresented system and version of an "OWA?" Why would they want to, if pressed to do so, assume the responsibility of looking at all of these submissions themselves? Reading all these scripts themselves? Selecting the best ones themselves? They wouldn't. Stage 32 is doing it all for free! Work...? I don't want to work. I'm not doing that. Not for Stage 32. No way, Jose.
Furthermore, Stage 32, you are not CAA. Or WME. Or UTA. And I'll go down the totem pole to a lower-level INNOVATIVE Artists or APA (now IAG), Stage 32 is not an agency, at any point. I keep hearing Stage 32 touting, "We have the best Writers!"
Hmmmmm. Okay, well I have no idea what the hell that claim is based upon. This is not a merit-based, talent-based pool There are no qualifiers to be inside this Writers' Room. None. And no disrespect to anyone here, whatsoever, but Producers willing to be apart of Stage 32's fake "OWA" endeavor have zero expectation that this pool of material is going to be even remotely representative of a pool of material from an established talent agency or management group that represents screenwriters. If anything, Producers wiggling their toes into Stage 32's waters are hoping that they find a script or two, or discover a cool new voice or two, along their path of doing absolutely squat. That is the reality of the situation.
Legitimate, hard-working Producers, don't need Stage 32 for material, they have access to material, and have many avenues to discover and secure interesting material.
It is Stage 32 that needs Producers -- seemingly ANY Producers willing -- and their participation -- albeit a next to zero participation factor -- in order for the Stage 32 Writers' Room revenue stream to continue flowing.
This is called selling the carrot, people.
And if there are no legitimate jobs materializing, no real options being transacted, and nothing ever comes to fruition for any of the Writers' Room members participating... then I ask you this...
What the hell do we have here...?
We have the promise of something that never materializes into anything.
And there are plenty of words to accurately describe what that equation represents.
Pick your word. It likely fits.
Like Michael Elliott said, I am way past the point of caring. And, honestly, I just see a bad, bad system staying exactly the same...
Because, Stage 32, you need it to stay exactly the same.
5 people like this
Holy Mother of all flame throwers. DT, I've experienced some of the doubts, misgivings and conclusions you've shared and so eloquently expressed. Unlike you, I only shared with a few friends, you and Anthony. It's up to every individual to draw their own conclusions and carry on in their best interests. I didn't think they needed my advice. They'd either wise up or become mired in Stage 32's version of Three Card Monte. Yes, some people have benefited but it always seemed to me they were the exceptions. An organization with a million plus members should be able to grind out bigger numbers. Part of the issue is they try to be everything to everybody. Having spent 4 decades in advertising I know that can be fatal. You can't be all things to all the people in your roster. Some segments are going to suffer and/or underperform. So, I've essentially cast my lot with those who exclusively specialize in promoting screenwriters. And I've gotten, for me, far more traction. But, hey! I got to meet your an Anthony. As a closet misanthrope, that's a real accomplishment. And I hope we'll all stay in touch. I was going to start out with an incident in South Vietnam where my platoon was saved by Ramon Hernandez who operated the flamethrower. Yet as I recalled it, I got a bit quesey and decided against it. Stay in touch. It's hard for me to make friends and I'd hate to lose this connection.
3 people like this
Hello, all. It's a pleasure to be a part of such a great community and meet so many professionals, and I look forward to sharing ideas and receiving advice for developing my skills as a screenplay writer. Thanks again. :)
6 people like this
The nut of it is, no producer is going hand creative selection for a serious opportunity over to inexperienced or anonymous readers who use the same process as is done for contests -- it's the difference between "it would be nice to have" vs. "i am looking for." If they are truly looking for something, it wouldn't take reminding for a response after months on end.
3 people like this
Connection solid Michael Elliott . Talk soon...
5 people like this
Furthermore, to add just one more point... please look at the attached photo, which highlights on every S32 OWA, the promotion of...
"YOUR WRITING OPPORTUNITIES FOR A-LIST COMPANIES INCLUDING:
1) HBOMAX (uh, it's been just MAX since May, 2023)
2) BLUMHOUSE PRODUCTIONS
3) AMAZON STUDIOS
4) PARAMOUNT+
5) CIRCLE OF CONFUSION
6) NBC UNIVERSAL
No doubt, all heavy-hitters, correctly defined as "A-LIST." That's 6 carrots. As those are the carrots being loaded up into the grocery basket and being sold to us, I, for one, want to know how many times these terrific A-LIST carrots are extending opportunities and actually being involved in the S32 OWAs.
The only way for The Writers' Room Membership to know that information is to demand that we be given that information. After all, who is paying for these wonderful opportunities?
It is you. And it is me.
Funny, but I sure don't see any "Jim Smith Productions" and "Just Got Out of Film School Yesterday, LLC" in that group of 6. My guess is that there are far more "Jim Smith..." and "Just Got Out..." participating in the OWAs than the "Big 6." Like, by a Stevie Nicks "Landslide."
And, you know, that doesn't quite have the same sucking power as the ongoing promotional effort that A-LIST carrots posses.
IMO, it's disingenuous at best. It's clearly a calculated effort to be fully non-transparent, with certainty. And if I was a writer that was going to continue to be a member of this collective -- which I am not -- I would most definitely be demanding transparency across the board before I spent another dollar in this Writers' Room.
I submit to you -- "The Room" -- that you have the collective power and the ability to be the Checks and Balances here. And if you truly want real opportunities with the OWAs, my suggestion would be that you use the powers, collectively, to create the change.
There's a thing called "Power of The Pocket Book." And it's very real.
Founder, RB, is the one who is always waxing on about writers taking control of their own careers. Being the "CEO of You." I could not agree with RB more.
I second that emotion, and double it down, good sir. And, without question, that mandate does not, and should not, preclude any efforts within this Writers Room to demand transparency and change.
6 people like this
"Just Launched - 6 New Open Writing Assignments!" Bueller... Bueller.... Bueller.... Le Sigh.
4 people like this
That's appropriately funny, Laurie Ashbourne. I think I ate at Le Sigh once... with a real Producer, too. Twas delish...
7 people like this
I so agree with Laurie and DT. I hope we get answers soon.
5 people like this
DT Houston YOU are the "Ferris Beuller" of this room! You're very popular with the Sportos, the Motorheads, Geeks, Sluts, Bloods, Waste-oids, Dweebies, Dickheads. We think you're a Righteous Dude!
4 people like this
Well, Bill Brock, and they say you can't please everybody all the time! Tsk, tsk, tsk. :>)
My swath cuts wide, BB. Room for all, I turn away none. Well, maybe P-Diddy. Bridge too far.
I shall try not to f-up the Ferrari next time I get sneaky.
Appreciate ya...
3 people like this
Michael Elliott Mike, you're a honorable man and I'm happy to have you as a friend. Congrats on the success of NOBODY'S HERO! And thanks for all the support that you've shown me is this screenwriting odyssey.
6 people like this
DT Houston Very well said, DT, especially the annonymous producers segment. To paraphrase my statement above--After being selected for OWAs, I would like to know who has my screenplay and check out their IMDBs, because if all six producers who have it pass, then who passed, the production companies that were never identified to me? You got to admit, that doesn't sound right, Stage 32.
5 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne Laurie, that's what I'm talking about and why I feel so much better about the two pitches that I landed than my six OWAs, because there were faces and names to the producers that I pitched, unlike the annonymous OWAs. Both producers I pitched were just wonderful, and I enjoyed meeting each of them, and would be honored to work with either of them. But sometimes, and by sometimes I mean often, you make a pitch and you know that "pro" is there just to make the dollars you've wasted pitching to him or her. The two producers I pitched last week were there 100% to find a project. One of the producers even had his production team with him for the pitch. It was a completely different experience than any pitch I've ever made on S32, when that should be the rule and not the exception. Stage 32 needs to vet their "pros" more carefully and throw out the chaff.
11 people like this
A while back, a writer alerted me to a listing on InkTip asking for female led action-thrillers in the vein of Thelma & Louise. They'd alerted me because they knew full well I had a script that not only fit the bill but was an Amazon notable project no less - so had a little kudos.
But it got better. The request was from one of the biggest production companies in the industry, a production company run by a man a producer friend of mine knew well AND said producer friend loved the script of mine in question.
Home run, right? Needless to say, my heart rapidly made its way into my mouth as it seemed the stars had aligned.
So, I reach out to my producer friend and they get equally excited. I tell them to basically name their commission fee as any sale to a prodco this size would be monumental. We of course skip InkTip and go direct, like, direct-direct. My producer calls the man at the top and speaks directly to him, referencing the listing.
He knew nothing about it. His managers knew nothing about it. He couldn't find anybody who knew anything about it. He listened to a quick pitch on the script and passed, because it wasn't what they were looking for.
Now, a cynical person would have assumed the listing was false, but that was most likely not the case. What was more likely was that someone at an assistant level was sourcing material they felt the prodco should be making in a bid to pitch something a bit radical and probably make a name for themselves in the process. It made sense to do it under the big prodco's name as technically that was true and most likely to draw in the most submissions.
Whenever I see an opportunity for the average screenwriter to easily submit material, I assume something akin to the above is going on. I don't for a second think that the top brass are involved and, if they are, certainly aren't waiting by the phone.
The OWAs are borderline passive, and I think it's fair trade that any system behind it is opaque. I can forgive readers skimming or being at an assistant level. I can accept a competition rating mentality too if it means those that make it through are at least being put in front of someone who can maybe make something happen rather than sitting on some list in tweet.
I appreciate that S32 needs to sell the sizzle too, because I've learned from experience that most writers only care about that 1% pinnacle of the industry. Take it from a guy who tells people to give the small prodcos and baby producers a chance - most turn their nose up at it.
I'll say this too, I can't begin to imagine how much irrelevant and sub-par crap must get submitted every time. Hell, I might be part of that issue myself. It's why Script Revolution works the other way around despite people asking me to allow requests all the time. Nope. You can't trust people with that.
Does it nark me when I get that thanks but no thanks email? Absolutely. Do I immediately invent conspiracy theories in my head? Bro, the tinfoil hat is ALWAYS on standby after a pass. But I've done what at my end? Typed out a title, logline, and attached a script pdf? I put more effort into brewing the cup of tea after.
Anyway, I know full well what it takes to evaluate material at a Hollywood level, and I know what it takes for a script to be considered hot. It ain't pretty. I also know what the supply and demand is like too, and that ain't pretty either. The OWAs are an easy way to keep chipping away at the block. Fire and forget I say, well, until that rejection email comes in, so maybe fire, forget, and fuck's sake instead.
8 people like this
Anthony Murphy - Yes. I much prefer to pitch and to pitch live. And congrats on your good progress in the process. Although to the other points, not necessarily OWA related, the good feeling of the process should not be the exception as noted.
As in anything I do a lot of due diligence before I pitch someone, and as a result very rarely do here, but 4 of the 5 that I have in the past year have been an exercise in futility. No doubt because of the execs and not the platform. A combination of no-shows, to no feedback, to I love it, and I want a direct connection, which goes unanswered, to I love it, but feedback is never provided to that response, so I'm given a new pitch to try the months long process again. The one that wasn't, was the pro I knew her to be and she simply said, I love it, great scores on the feedback, it's just too small for what I am looking for.
That said, it brings up one easy way to fix the ABSOLUTELY BROKEN OWA system is to simply have pitches to the companies.
CJ Walley I agree that it is a complicated process fraught with insane scenarios like the example you mention. And I think we all have been on the fire, forget, and fuck's sake hamster wheel for too long. There has been no one that has been a bigger supporter of all that is Stage 32 than me over the years, and I am always the first to come to its defense when it is lumped into other nefarious services -- of which there are many, this process unless fixed is sadly in that group.
I agree there is likely a lot crap to sort through on any given so-called OWA but It should not be sorted with the same process as a contest. Certainly not the final selection process. As mentioned previously, even contest winners rarely get made. It's a different process for a different purpose. As someone who knows how the sausage is made, contests across the board are a waste of time and money.
If there is a genuine OWA open it up for pitches.
7 people like this
I should add that the primary reason the one selection 2 years ago, (mine) that went as far as it did, (and could have gone further had it not been the problems of another production) was because Jason Mirch hand selected and nurtured it via his relationship with the producers. He knew if it came from me it was production ready. That level of attention is what is required.
6 people like this
Thank you CJ Walley, Laurie, DT, and Anthony for posting. I hope Stage 32 will get back to us soon. and CJ - I am happy to go the indie route. It's where one of my script is now.
7 people like this
Anthony Murphy The reason the producers are anonymous is that they probably aren’t even on IMDb. Just yesterday they announced 57 more requests from companies like CAA which is just an agency that seldom if ever agrees to rep screenwriters without a track record and two production companies that I couldn’t find on the IMDb. When they say requested it probably means the Stage 32 reader passed it on to the company so I am not sure that is even a real request from the production company. Spec screenplays are used to make connections in the business so keeping the producer's names is a drawback. I am not saying people shouldn't submit via the OWA here but think of it like buying a lottery ticket and winning the lottery shouldn't be the only thing in your business plan. Good luck!
4 people like this
Correct, Dan Guardino - Hope is not a business plan.
4 people like this
I feel like I've taken on the role of devil's advocate here, so I'll throw in a few considerations.
1) Just because these submissions have been called OWAs, does not mean they have to operate in the same manner. Forcing them to may be a case of the tail wagging the dog at this point. Perhaps it's just an unfortunate but understandable name choice.
2) Not every writer wants to pitch, or do any more than they would when they submit to a competition. I'm a big advocate for "filling the gap" as I call it with at least a synopsis, but not every writer has one on hand.
3) We have to be careful when criticising a process we know next to nothing about. I feel a lot of pessimism is creeping in here. Maybe I missed someting. There could be a lot of care being taken, and I say that as someone who always gets a rapid pass.
4) More feedback equals more time and thus more cost. Plus, no prodco utilising a service is going to want to provide that if they are indeed involved in the decision making process in any way.
5) Industry members involved with this type of thing will always tend to lean away from having their names used as that almost always leads to being harassed by writers who don't respect boundaries.
If the OWAs were their own beast, I could totally understand the premium argument. However, as a benefit within the writing room, they fall within that package. In that regard, I feel they offer an opportunity most writers don't have, especially those not actively querying.
Maybe something more qualitative over quantitative would be better. I don't know. I just know that you'd be talking about a whole new process of working within an already busy organisation, just so people know why their material didn't get selected for submission. If that is simply because it wasn't fit for the assignment, then does that hold much value to the writer. If I got told it was because the reader thought my script was a 3/10, had poor structure, and bad dialogue, I wouldn't take any action. I'm waiting for alignment, not looking for guidance.
4 people like this
Hi All: Ferris here, about to share some more explanations and inner thoughts. First, all great points Anthony Murphy , CJ Walley and Laurie Ashbourne.
On my final days of skipping school and breaking rules, I'm far more interested in peeling back the curtain, breaking the 4th Wall, and lesson planning the money stream and concealment scheme.
Hello, Stage 32. We all know you are tuned in to this thread because it is indeed the best read going on this entire platform.
I, too, was drinking the Kool Aid. Until... I stopped. Until I woke up and realized exactly what Michael Elliott said yesterday in this very thread -- this whole Stage 32 Menu, if you will, works (maybe) for a few, to the exclusion of everyone else. I happened to be one of those few. Yes, it was working for me. Please realize that my sharing is not born from a Sour Grapes recipe. It's shared from a realization that although I may have personally benefitted from what I will call the...
"A La Carte Stage 32 Menu" of paid pitches, reads and consults with Executives of my choosing -- where everything is on the up-and-up and mostly transparent...
The "Main Menu," Stage 32's "Uninterrupted Writers' Room Revenue Stream" is, in my view, fraught with OWA concealment, targeted obfuscation, and a, most definitely, purposeful and lengthy drawn out results window.
And it's all... by... design.
"Once you cancel your membership you will immediately lose any access to Open Writing Assignments, on demand webcasts, Private Lounge access, discounts on script coverage, contest entries and education and all other Writers’ Room benefits."
If you're anything like me, the main item you give a shit about is the OWA. In and of itself, the very paragraph above is a lesson in obfuscation. On its face, it clearly implies -- if you leave, you will then have no OWA access. At all. It does not specify and pinpoint. It's an overarching statement which is worded to KEEP YOU inside The Room.
What it should say -- but does not say -- is this:
"Should decide to leave the Writers' Room, you will no longer have access to future OWAs, however, you will remain in the running for any and all OWAs you submitted on while you were a paying member of the Stage 32 Writers' Room."
Stage 32, if you decide to make any efforts toward change and transparency, which I'm sure as hell not putting any of my hard-earned money on, uh, this would be a really EZ-PZ Pole Position place to start from.
This long-ass 8-10 week results, "winners," window. C'mon. It's all by design, people. CJ Walley made mention to this in a rather brief post the other day, "You're waiting how long...?" Or words to that effect.
Let's just say there's 1K members in this room. I think there is likely far more than 1K, but it's a modest number for this evaluation. I'm rounding up to $40 a month per member. That's $40K uninterrupted revenue, month-to-month, allowing for fluctuations in both directions. WE are paying that, and Stage 32 we deserve a much shorter "results delivery" window. Read those damn scripts. Pay those damn readers. And stop dragging the shit out forever. It only works for you -- it doesn't work for us-- the people who, you know, are paying you.
It's utterly ridiculous. But you see, the longer we must wait around to see these OWA results, the more OWAs we then enter, and the longer we then wait for those OWAs to reach results, then we enter the next OWAs... and on, and on, and on.
And what you have is a Stage 32/Fleetwood Mac, "The Chain"... which... all... links... together... and... keeps... you... waiting around... for... results... and... paying... your... hard-earned money... to... Stage 32.
It... is... a... formula.
Sidebar. Let's digress for a momentito...
I have this great little True Crime story that I'm attempting to produce. The man with enough kids to field his own AAU Travel Ball squad, Nick Cannon, was once attached to star in this. (Before I came to it.) Big Poppa is too old now, but I'm out to a 2024 version of Nick Cannon who might just pull the plug and say yes to doing it. We'll see. Fingers crossed. This project began as a book called "God Wants You To Roll." (Look it up, it's a great read!) It was later featured as an episode of the CNBC series, "American Greed." It's a deliciously cunning tale about how two ordinary, minimum-wage earning teenagers from So Cal used Churches from Coast-to-Coast to bilk the unsuspecting faithful out of 21 Million bucks with the promise of providing dirt cheap "Miracle Cars" culled from a " 400 Million Dollar Estate" of one of the teen's deceased father. Uh, but there was no Estate, and no father, and certainly no cars. After 7(!) long years, the Feds finally caught 'em. They went to prison for over 20 years each. But 8 million was never found. I assure you it's not lost, just safely tucked away. Waiting.
In "God Wants You To Roll," as in many stories of this nature, the wait -- the string along -- is a primary key to the success of the endeavor. Anyway, I bring it up only because it's a truly riveting story, and I'm fully hoping to be bringing it to a screen near you -- big or small, don't care -- sometime soon. Sidebar, out.
All right. I'm going to finish up here with Zero Gravity. Anthony Murphy, you began this thread 4 months ago. You started the conversation. I think we can all say thank you for that. I'm sure your intention was small and defined, you simply wanted to know what you wanted to know. But like a lot of things, the first intention can often morph and take on a life of its own. That's kind of what has happened here. The discussion has evolved into something much more substantial. Foundational. Operational. Without question, Amanda and RB have been watching this thread from early on, monitoring it, evaluating it, etc. Others, as well, I'm sure, but, honestly, I'm fairly certain that Stage 32 is primarily a two-trick pony show -- it's RB and it's Amanda.
Shortly after this thread began -- a few weeks, maybe a month or so -- there was a special little Zoom Call in December with a manager from Zero Gravity, a great guy named Eric Williams. I'm not exactly sure how many people in this Room were invited to this special Zoom event, but for whatever reason, I was invited and I gladly showed up.
Now, for a touch of backstory, Eric represented me for a period of time. ZG had not yet begun to reach A-List status yet, but they were definitely well on their way to doing so. Now, during this Zoom, which was great, by the way, I also learned that Amanda and Eric had been friends for a long time. So, all good there. It was my first time seeing/meeting Amanda, so it was just this case of knowing a person in common -- manager/producer/good dude, Eric.
Here's what I find curious about what happened in the following weeks ahead.
We'd had this thread going, raising a lot of questions about the OWAs.
We'd also had a very established and lengthy results window of 8-10 weeks on OWAs.
Then, shortly after this ZG Zoom, an OWA pops up on the radar for something super specific. A golf movie that Cedric The Entertainer could possibly star in. Clearly, that type of very defined OWA is not normal. That OWA is not going to get very many submission relative to the typical OWA calls. If I'm guessing, if you get 15 submissions that meet the Cedric mandate, that would be a true windfall of screenplays. I'm betting we're firmly standing in the 10 items or less line.
In any event, just on presentation alone, it was smelling really strange to me.
Furthermore, although I did not reveal this to Stage 32, I immediately knew that ZG was the company behind this OWA because...
A) I knew that ZG represented Cedric.
and...
B) My next door neighbors, two music producer brothers, are Cedric's First Cousins. And so I was fully aware that Cedric and a Golf movie would fit together like PB&J.
Although I already knew ZG was the producer behind the OWA, I wanted to see if Stage 32 would tell me that it was ZG behind the OWA. (I actually do have a Golf Movie, but it's not my script, it's a client's script. So I used that as the reason why I was inquiring -- could I submit his script?) Stage 32 would not tell me it was ZG, and no, my client's Golf script did not get submitted.
Now remember the results time window we have all been dealing with on OWAs -- 8-10 weeks, if not more.
You all might recall that this Cedric/Golf/OWA came back with fanfare results, in wham-bam-thank ya-ma'am!, fish-grease-on-a-skillet FAST turnaround time! Now, I don't recall the exact time, but I'm sure we can all find the post where Amanda revealed not only that 4-5 writers and scripts that had been selected...
Horn blowing ensues -- ZERO GRAVITY! ZERO GRAVITY! was behind the OWA! Exciting news to share! And it was a production. ZG was being paraded about.
Here we had a very sudden full-disclosure of a true A-List management company/verified, real-fucking-deal producer of legitimate film and television productions.
And I sat back and I just thought about the pieces I was looking at. I thought about what the Status Quo had always been. How things had always worked. Which is...
No transparency.
No revealing of the producer/manger, etc.
Long results window.
Rather broad, undefined parameters on each OWA.
And here we suddenly have one OWA where all bets are apparently off. One OWA where every Status Quo has clearly been bypassed. One OWA where everything dovetails together to perfection in this nice little, tight, quick package, which...
Flies in the face of everything we see on a daily basis.
Zero Gravity got trotted out.
Amanda Toney waved flags and tossed confetti at this fantastic opportunity that just happened for these 4-5 writers.
In record time.
Amanda and RB... if you make that the norm, if you make that happen all the time, if you make that something we can all expect from OWA to OWA. And that actually turns into some actual jobs for the writers you reportedly champion...
Then, you know what, this Ferris Bueller here might just drink that. And believe that. And be down to keep suiting up for that so called, "Creative Army."
Until then, absolutely not. No bueno.
Northwestern is my school and team. Not Stage 32
(Ferris looks into the CAMERA)
"What? You're still here? Go. Fix The House."
2 people like this
All we need now is for one of the principals in this drama to be executed in a particularly brutal way (I pick death by flamethrower. I know where I can get one) and we have all the material for a riveting screenplay..."The OWA Murders". I'd write it but I don't think I could kill off my darlings, even if they richly deserved it.
4 people like this
Oh, Snarky. :>). High road!
I wish the lucky candidates on the Cedric/Zero Gravity opportunity nothing but good wishes and very high hopes. But in the timeless words of one of my favorite outspoken and tell it like it is humans on the planet, ex-NBA legend, Charles Barkley...
"I may be wrong... but I doubt it."
5 people like this
CJ Walley 1) RE: the name OWA - Yes.very unfortunate choice. So, why not change it? Changing it would actually make the process seem less "dirty."
2) Totally agree. The pitching aspect ties directly to whether these are actual OWAs or not.
3) Pessimism; maybe that's fair, but so is the criticism. I am the last person to criticize this platform and I typically save those notes for drinks with RB. But this thread is 4 months old, when it was simply asked to have more specifics in the process (more detail gives less room for doubt and legitimacy). And last week, all hell broke loose, and yesterday and today it seems there is still no resolve, and in fact it is business as usual full steam ahead with the process -- which points to the automation of it, which points to the need for it to be addressed. I say nothing here that I have not said elsewhere, and it has simply grown on its own volition.
4) I think it's been made pretty clear that the process does not need to include feedback. That is a double edged sword that will never make anyone happy.
5) Names (not contact information) should be given if that person has been given a script. Flat out. No two ways about it.
Agree. The IDEA of the OWAs offers opportunity that is not available elsewhere, but the actuality is, there is no opportunity if the listings are not legitimate people looking for material. As DT stated, 2 years. and only one project that made it to budget, casting and director discussions, is not an opportunity, it is a distress call to an ineffective process.
"I just know that you'd be talking about a whole new process of working within an already busy organisation, just so people know why their material didn't get selected for submission." It's not just so people know why -- a whole new process is better defined for everyone, including the busy organization. More precision in the request, less unqualified submissions, more accountability to the requestor (ie: Do you actually have the ability to move on something if you find it? And, you have a set reading period -- which BTW is completely standard in the industry), would ease the impatience of those waiting months or even over a year to hear back.
Honestly, I am not one to obsessively track submissions and I have no idea how many of my scripts are out there, but think of it this way, if it is an executive who works with Stage 32, who has been forwarded my script through an OWA, and I see that someone is taking pitches or consults for the same type of material (not knowing who the executive is that has my material, or who previously passed on it), then I purchase the service with that person, it is for no reason and certainly not alignment.
"I'm waiting for alignment, not looking for guidance." Truer words have never been spoken (or typed).
4 people like this
Dan Guardino Dan, as I posted earlier, the odd part is that when my script was selected the first time for 0139, the name of the producer, Go Films, was included in the selection email:
Congratulations! The Old Master is one of the top scripts moving forward for consideration and will be submitted (after the strike) to a producer at GO Films for Open Writing Assignment 0139.
But in the 5 OWAs my script has been selected for since, no production company is given, and perhaps you are correct that the anonymous "producers" have no IMDB credits.
3 people like this
Perhaps the people who pay for Writer's Room "perks" should ask for a P &L statement for for Stage 32? At least an accounting of the names and credentials of every person receiving $$$$ for their participation in the script process? If someone is legit, like college degrees that can be checked, their training, education, certificates, credits, etc. should be sent to everyone who pays for services....you wouldn't go to any other professional who refused to present verification of the source of their expertise.
4 people like this
Brock scoops up his little dog, looks around, takes in the mystical essence of his bizarre surroundings as Glenda the Good Witch approaches.
BROCK
Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.
GLENDA
Oh, no, silly one. Welcome to the Land of Stage 32, where you'll need to follow the yellow brick road until you reach OWA City. That's where you'll discover all information pertaining to Open Writing Assignments. But DO beware! OWA City is a place shrouded in mystery-- Extremely long wait times for feedback, nameless readers, nameless producers, and the nearly vacant news of rare success stories. Word has it that it's a place where everything's fake, counterfeit, fraudulent, false, bogus, invalid, artificial, synthetic, man-made, and so-called.
Brock enjoys an elongated sigh of comfort as Toto licks his owner's ear, then chews on an overabundance of fresh wax.
BROCK
Screw that noise! I'm just gonna click my heels three times, bounce back into Kansas, then wait for Auntie Em to scream repeatedly that dinner is ready. Lucky me. It's Taco Tuesday.
1 person likes this
Well, Bill Brock,speaking of Toto, also one of my favorite old school (and under appreciated) rock bands. Just last night I was watching this little ditty with Steve "Luke" Lukather, lead guitarist and one of the truly great players. An old friend, too. Here's one tasty melodic solo off the cuff. Go to 1:19 ish
https://youtu.be/4nBbzajS29o?si=MhFhOwXHfhHEvhIh
6 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne, great points. I don't really disagree with any of them. Personally, I just feel the OWAs are representative of any part of the industry that's looking for scripts online. As you well know, people with high levels of decision making power tend to have a backlog of scripts or at least trusted writers on hand. When I see someone soliciting for material it screams baby producer, studio assistant, lone director, startup prodco, new investor, or boutique rep, and I'm cool with that. Hell, I've built a platform pretty much serving that. Plus, the real meat of the opportunity may not be a particular script getting optioned/bought/produced but the networking done in an attempt to make that happen.
I think anyone responding to open requests just needs to accept that they are most likely dealing with part of the industry that's at its most fickle, messy, and naive. There probably aren't going to be impressive IMDb credits, there probably isn't going to be a strict timescale, and the path through funding and development is likely to be perilous at best. That's still a great opportunity for an unknown, uncredited writer, especially when it's offered on a plate.
5 people like this
CJ Walley I appreciate your Devil's Advocate role, but wanted to address the following argument, because it most concerns me:
"5) Industry members involved with this type of thing will always tend to lean away from having their names used as that almost always leads to being harassed by writers who don't respect boundaries."
How is an OWA selectee any more likely to harass an industry professional than a Stage 32 member who pitches via Skype that same industry professional that does or doesn't request the script? If this is Stage 32's reasoning, then why not have blind pitches as well, with the pro's Skype screen blacked out and the name of the pitched pro or production company kept anonymous? I would like to sell you what's in this box, but no, you can't look in it before or after paying me. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
And Stage 32 members act more professionally, regardless of IMDB credits, than some of the "pros' that we pay to deal with. I had one "pro" that I spent $250 for a consultation that without a doubt didn't bother to read my script, for he couldn't name my first plot point on page 27, when my protagonist, a boxer fighting for the world championship, gets his eyeball knocked from his socket so that it dangles on his cheek, his hopes and dreams dashed. I told S32 about this, but got no response, let alone a refund or at least another consultation. $250 is a lot of money to steal from a poor writer that's paid a "pro" to read his script, and then that "pro" has the audacity to dispense advice about a script he hasn't read, which really curled my toes. I had another "pro" that I ended the pitch thinking it had gone well, but got the rudest evaluation, after I was nothing but polite to him. I know of other S32 members that have been treated in similar ways. Professionailism, courtesy, and respect should be two way streets.
So Stage 32 should not only vet these "pros" more carefully, S32 should allow us to retort to the "pros" comments and evaluate the "pros" just like they evaluate us, and then get rid of the ones that are graded poorly. For example, my script is a period piece, but two "pros" passed on the script because they couldn't understand why boxing was being shown in the same venue as vaudeville acts. Well, because that's how it was, I would have liked to have responded, but there was no avenue to do so.
3 people like this
Kinda proving my point there, Anthony.
4 people like this
100% CJ Walley and Anthony Murphy
1 person likes this
CJ Walley How's that, CJ? Please elaborate, especially concerning your 5th argument and my response to it.
2 people like this
One thing that is abundantly clear with this thread is that there is a need for advocacy for Screenwriters.
Screenwriters that are dealing with services that are outside of the realm of WGA jurisdiction. Do we need to unionize? I don’t think that’s realistic, but the fact of the matter is I have amassed over my career, a huge file of services that are ineffective and a waste of an emerging Writers’ efforts. That’s putting it nicely. I have incredible amounts of information and have been in these organizations and have firsthand experiences from countless writers who have reached out to me and I have tested nearly every single service on the market. This is more than just my personal experience.I know CJ has done a lot to advocate for Writers. He built an entire revolution around it — literally. And he did so to address these same issues. Thank goodness for CJ's voice in this.
Nonetheless, the cottage industry of script services has reached boiling point. It’s reached a tipping point because there are so many of them out there (many masquerading as individual services when they are all owned by the same conglomerate) and Writers are more educated now. They’re not only better at their craft, they’re better at their business — out of necessity and quite frankly no one should have to stand for substandard service.
Somebody needs to advocate for the writers as much as aspiring producers. Yes, independent producers are having a rough time right now and they too deserve to make a living. I know that firsthand as well, but that’s no reason to give them carte blanche and not give the Writers any credence.
There needs to be an organization that steps up and considers Writers first as opposed to people claiming to be producers.
The beauty and the ugliness of this industry is that anybody can be a part of it and therefore everyone is, and not everyone is qualified and that is on all sides of the industry, that is on people trying to get their scripts made, that is on people trying to make scripts Into movies, and that is on people trying to star in movies. It is a business born of scrappiness. It always has been since inception. But that does not give an excuse for people to just throw money after money, after effort after effort, into a black hole. I mean, I guess if you wanna do that, have at it, but You’ll never get a movie made if that’s why you want to be part of this business.
It’s time there was a service or platform, or whatever you wanna call it, that comes at this beautiful problem a little differently, I would hope that that would be Stage 32 — I just know that right now, such a service doesn’t exist.
This platform was built to democratize access, that’s the mission statement, it’s not to be just another money grabbing screenwriting service - granted screenwriting is just a portion of what the site is and there are benefits outside of the Script services offerings — MANY OF WHICH I AM GRATEFUL FOR — but there’s no doubt screenwriting is a huge portion of this community and it is what this thread is all about and until that portion is also democratized, we are just dealing with another service that’s ineffective.
It won’t be democratized until Writers’ time and effort is equal to the respect that producers and executives time and effort is given. In other words, Producers and executives are given all the time in the world, and all the excuses in the world, zero accountability, and the writers are just meant to standby, and that’s not acceptable.
The industry can most often move at a snail’s pace, because there’s only so much time in a day, and some just aren’t good at an overloaded bandwidth, but if parameters and expectations are set, (which is at the core of this thread) it will no doubt ease the process, the service, the pain, and FFS close this thread.
3 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne, you are a true pro. You say things well. Clearly. Effectively. With far less words than I use, too. :>). I will say that I think I'm better than average at reading between the lines, as a rule. Like me, you have been a real supporter of Stage 32, and I know that we both fully appreciate that certain PARTS of Stage 32 can have real benefit and value. Unlike me, you've also supported Stage 32 from their side of the aisle, as well, in the role of mentor, producer, executive, etc. So I do think that your particular voice is a resoundingly rock solid one, a very important one, and a voice that is, like mine, speaking up and out because there is simply a very real need to do so. Indeed, this is all about advocating for us -- the writers.
I have sensed your concerns, your frustrations, quietly move up the needle. Never to a boil, mind you, I don't think that's a component in your method(s). Your effectiveness comes through differently. Confidently. Assuredly. When you brought up the issue of Shopping Agreements not long ago, correctly indicating that these non-payment brand of agreements should not be looked upon as terrific landing points, or major accomplishments to be shooting for, I was reading between the lines and nodding my head, "Yes, 100% correct."
In your own way, you were advocating and informing the community, "No, folks, this is not really what you want to be shooting for. It's a baby step forward, sure, and, yes, be proud that somebody likes your material, but let's not get sucked in to the notion that this is something you really want to be doing. Last resort, yes. Short term, yes. Non-exclusive, absolutely. But it's not a paid option. It's not a job. It's a freebie."
Stage 32 is notoriously fantastic at celebrating each and every success story they can tout. I would say "big or small," but there's just not enough "big" for that statement to be appropriate and accurate. And especially when it comes to Stage 32's machination of their elusive and mysterious -- and still yet to be addressed -- OWA.
If there's one voice in the room here that Stage 32 should absolutely be listening to with two wide-open ears, hearing each and every word loud and clear... it is yours Laurie Ashbourne. I'm very glad you're here. -- DT
4 people like this
TO ALL: PLEASE READ THIS WITH ATTENTION, THIS MAY VERY WELL BE MY FINAL POST
I have to be very careful here. And I will be. It is very important that I share this information with you, and I must do it in such a manner where there is nobody named or even alluded to.
Earlier in this thread, I wrote about Independent Producing, and detailed that it's very, very challenging for most producers these days. I also mentioned that a producer had recently asked me directly for money.
What I did not mention in that early post, was that this producer was on the Stage 32 platform.
That's right. This person came to me directly via Stage 32 Script Services.
I did not previously know this producer. I bought four separate services with this producer. Based upon this producer's proven track record and interest in my projects, I ended up collaborating on a pair of my feature projects with this individual.
I cannot go into any specific details about what transpired other than to share what I have already shared. There was an ask for money, on more than one occasion, and it put me in a very uncomfortable and difficult position with this person. The only other bit of information I will share is that this individual also wanted to circumvent the Stage 32 platform entirely, and offered direct consulting services -- services which I neither needed or wanted. This person was supposed to be rolling up sleeves, and looking at producing projects together. Instead, all it was, was an attempt at a money grab.
Lastly, I have the ability to produce at least two other individuals -- at this moment -- who had nearly identical situations with this person.
As of yesterday, April 3, 2024 I want this community to know that...
I made Stage 32 fully aware of this situation via email.
Additionally, I also requested an in-person meeting with Stage 32 managing director, Amanda Toney, to discuss this very situation. As a first step.
As of today, as of April 4, 2024 at 1:15 PM PST -- I JUST CHECKED -- this producer, who shall remain nameless and unspecified, is still on the Stage 32 website, and fully available for anyone of us to hire on various Reads/Consults.
I find this to be beyond alarming and disturbing. It's unconscionable, it's irresponsible, probably negligent, and it truly calls into question...
What the fuck is going on at Stage 32?
Unfortunately, I can't tell you who this individual is. I wish I could.
I suggest that everybody print out this entire thread. Now.
DT
5 people like this
Wow DT Houston , what a drag! I don't blame you for being alarmed and disturbed. Definitely a lot of red flags. I don't get it. Four S32 producers tried that nonsense on me. S32 deleted them tout de suite from the roster. This individual must have mondo credits (or something else).
1 person likes this
Well, that sure is very interesting, Robin Gregory. I think it's quite appropriate to say that it all points to bigger issues, and a bigger picture, and far more questions.
If it's your platform, and it's your people, and you split the money... it is indeed your problem.
8 people like this
Producer has been removed.
Sad that I had to post it here to effectuate the action.
4 people like this
DT Houston That is good news. Producers like that are as welcome as a Great White in a goldfish bowl.
7 people like this
I would just like to commend DT on his impeccable use of bolding throughout this thread. Damn fine work.
1 person likes this
Thanks Mark Garbett. Appreciate it...
DT Houston OMG! Steve (from Toto) sounds like a GREAT guy! Such an awesome dude. I dig his ZEN, man! Wow! I was in junior high school when I first discovered TOTO's "Hold the LIne" back in 1979. Agreed. They were such a cool band, UNBELIEVABLY UNDER-RATED! I could listen to "Africa" forever!
4 people like this
This thread has taught me a lot. The information is so valuable that Stage 32 should reward Anthony, DT, Laurie, CJ, and many others who have provided details of their experiences that I consider lessons learned and all for free.
4 people like this
Hi everyone. Jumping in to address a few things and this will be my last comment here. The Stage 32 Team all work very hard and we all care deeply for you and our community. We do not work "lean" as a company of almost 30 people. We work hard to get you as many opportunities as possible and let me assure you, they are real. RB and Amanda do not have the time to address a lengthy thread that started several months ago bringing up issues we have already solved or are working on. I hope, personally, that if any of you or anyone in the community for that matter, have issues, suggestions, problems, or solutions - you come to me as the Director of Development Services or to anyone on the team- Nick, Emily, Sam, Pat and I are here for you. Always. Of course you are always welcome to talk about things in the lounge and the community, that's what it's here for, to be there for each other. But when comments start to wildly speculate and conflate issues, promote a significant amount of misinformation and become disrespectful, I will no longer engage. (I am only speaking for myself here.) If you weren't aware, the team and I have been discussing OWAs, and their processes internally for a while. We have recently reworked our communications and notification processes to be much more efficient and timely. If you haven't already seen the effects of that work I'm sure you will soon. We work very hard for all of you and we take pride in our work. Nick Phillips will be jumping on a Zoom next week in the Writers' Room to talk about OWAs. If you're interested, watch for the posting of the time and date in the Writers' Room Lounge. I hope you can join then. Thanks everyone.
1 person likes this
I'm glad it helped at least one person, Asmaa Jamil
2 people like this
I ditto Laurie Ashbourne . Thanks Asmaa Jamil.
And Niki H, I do not know you. I have never met you. I've never communicated with you even one time, in any shape, form or fashion. So I have no opinion of you or knowledge about you. None.
All said, I am going to push back very swiftly and very directly against your assertion that Stage 32 does not work "lean" as a company. Perhaps that is how you personally perceive things, but I will tell you that I was told directly, in no uncertain terms, in a cne-on-one, direct conversation, with a colleague of yours who sees it quite differently. In short, saying the company works "very lean" , and I quote, "You would be surprised how few full-time staff actually work at Stage 32."
And I really don't think employees say this type of thing just for the hell of it.
I found this person to be highly credible, whip smart, super kind, full of experience and talent, and the information was not shared in any sort of negative or derogatory manner, whatsoever. It was just a matter-of-fact, this is how it is exchange, during a great conversation.
And I want to be very clear on something with everyone here, but especially with all the apparently "not lean Stage 32 staffers." In January/February, I partnered-up on a feature film project of mine, Jeff Buckley, with A+ human and ace movie producer, Nick Phillips. This occurred before Nick became an employee of Stage 32.
When this OWA debacle began to take center stage here, when things began to stir up, I took great care to NOT have any communications with Nick about any of this bullshit. And my conversation regarding the "lean" nature of Stage 32 was certainly not a conversation I ever had with Nick. He's been at Stage 32 for a very brief time, and I doubt Nick would even have the capacity to even make any such assessment.
I am delighted to hear that Nick will be making some efforts on behalf of Stage 32 to address the OWA issues. I can think of no one better who might be able to help give the wholly ineffective system an actual rudder. I can assure you that Nick will listen to the Writers' Room members concerns, and do his very best. Can he help fix it? I have no f'in clue. I guess you guys will find out in due time.
Great producers like Nick are indeed problem solvers. They wear many hats. And that's a great start. Whether he was working for Stage 32 or just lending his expertise and knowledge to the platform on the side, as he's done for many years, I'd put all my chips on Nick before I put them on anyone else at Stage 32, including one Director of Development Services who would like you to believe that whole paragraph that she writes about above. (Yawn.)
And, no, Niki H . that's not DT Houston providing misinformation or being disrespectful, that's DT Houston telling it exactly how I fucking see it. Which I'm fully entitled to do. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's pretty much exactly what Richard "RB" preaches and does all the time. You know, take agency. Be the CEO of you.
And by the way, yes, I will be waiting for that phone call from Amanda Toney, so that we can have that sit down at the very busy, lots of employees Stage 32 corporate HQs, to discuss that very established producer who was fully all over your platform, seeking as many new customers as that person could possibly get, who attempted to jack money out of me, who didn't really have any interest in producing movies, and who damaged one of my projects in the process, as a result of his ineptitude and sole focus on money grabbing.
I think everybody here on this thread, and in this Writers' Room, is smart enough to know what's up and what's what.
I trust...
The Room.
3 people like this
"We work hard to get you as many opportunities as possible and let me assure you, they are real."
Niki H , please, that talk is cheaper than a bargain Anne Klein pantsuit at TJ Maxx. Nobody here wants "assurances" that things are real. We want the open transparency which will demonstrate that opportunities are real. Surely, you must have read enough of this lengthy thread to grasp that paramount, hammered-home, issue.
"RB and Amanda do not have the time to address a lengthy thread that started several months ago bringing up issues we have already solved or are working on."
Solved...? Really...? I'm sure everyone on this thread would love (!) to hear exactly what has been solved. So whenever that time feels right for you to re-engage Niki H, or maybe it's when you trot Nick out to be the new OWA fixer, like a Ray Donovan, I can assure you that there will be a captive audience waiting to hear all about that solvation. (I think I just made that word up.)
I , for one, absolutely love the word solved. It's also a mighty big word for only 6 letters. "Solved" is like a fully executed, satisfying screenplay. Beginning, middle and end. We did it. We finished it. Solved it. Time for a beer and a little pat on the back.
A sudden and unexpected document dump of OWA results literally overnight, and out of the blue, does not equate to a "solved" issue. It definitely equates to something, but I don't think anybody here quite understands exactly what that was all about. If there was an explanation, pardon me, but I missed it.
10 people like this
When I launched Script Revolution in 2016, I thought offering what the likes of InkTip and the Black List were doing for free would set the world on fire. Here was the first true searchable database were any writer could effectively build up an online portfolio, one that had a bio along with all their social media links, and to top it all off, it had a true do-no-damage rating system where people could upvote what they liked. Plus, it was open to any filmmaker too, so no begging for validation and having to buy dinners for the gatekeepers to even let you look at the material available.
People were repulsed. There was no exclusivity, no glitz or glamour. There was no promises of the top studios looking for scripts and claims that people should be preparing Oscar acceptance speeches. It was seen as muck raking at best with laughter and mockery mostly.
In nearly eight years, not a single media outlet has even mentioned Script Revolution. If you go to the likes of Reddit, DoneDealPro, or various Facebook groups, it is never mentioned in their FAQs or advice posts. The site has grown entirely by word of mouth, mainly stemming from communities like this one.
Within a couple of years of running ScriptRev, I became aware of how screenwriting competitions were mushrooming in number. I knew this because I was trying to keep a database of them all so my members could show off their accolades. I was alarmed at how much money and hope the average writer was putting into what was complete BS. So I made a public stand against.
I was dragged through the streets for doing that. There's still places I cannot go because I did that.
For over ten years now, I've blogged about putting craft before anything else. I've written extensive articles on what I've seen work and what I haven't seen work. I've shared a ton of insight into what I've experienced in terms of the good, the bad, and the ugly.
None of those blogs have been shared in the communities I dip into, while superficial nonsense and clickbait goes viral all the time.
I'm not trying to martyr myself here. I'm very happy about how things are going in the long term. I'm trying to paint a picture of what it's really like when you get real. It is not wanted by most. It shatters this collective dream that screenwriting is really all about waiting for that Cinderella moment where your fairy godmother pops up in the form of an opportunity and you get to the ball that is Hollywood.
There will be no cavalry for screenwriters until this culture of becoming rich and famous tomorrow and jetting off to tinsel town to walk the red carpet is done with. We are treated like suckers collectively because we act like suckers collectively. We are told that modest opportunities are once in a lifetime opportunities because it's what we want to hear. We are told to enter yet another season of mainly useless competitions not by the organisers but by our peers. I got into this in 2012 and, despite watching next to nobody succeed in the slightest, nothing has changed. NOTHING. I can go on Reddit now and guarantee that at least one of the top posts on r/screenwriting, in both question and top voted answers, is more or less identical to one a decade ago, not because the advice works but because it feels right.
If we want change it means we have to accept that problems both run both ways. I hate to say this, but that means actually lowering the bar significantly on the side of the average aspiring screenwriter. It means respecting that the 99% of the industry that's ignored and seeing opportunities within it as precious. It is only once we start to value it that we can expect more from it. Maybe then it won't just be seen as Hollywood or Hucksters by so many.
To me, the OWAs are representative of this dilemma that exists. Transparency is punished in this world, not because it reveals something bad, but because it creates comparison with those shilling snake oil. I know it because I've lived it.
Please don't see this rant as countering the rhetoric in any way. I want the same thing. I dream of the same thing. However, experience has taught me that we're in the situation we're in because, as a group, we treat this like a get rich quick scheme rather than a creative life goal. I hope that makes sense and I'm sorry to see I've somehow, in this thread, become the figurehead of everything I despise.
8 people like this
Some positive news to report about one of the recent OWA selections KEANU REEVES IS MY MUSE, MY SON IS A DRAGON. Author Phoenix Black has had a general meeting with the former head of Amazon Studios. Not the best possible outcome but a positive step nonetheless. It's the kind of thing we need to see more of coming out of the OWA process. The bad news here is that the meeting occured through the ISA rather than through the OWA process. It does however demonstrate the kind of result that is possible for OWA writers. Hopefully we'll start to see some of it happening here soon.
4 people like this
Laurie Ashbourne CJ Walley DT Houston - Thank you for your illuminating dialogue. Eye-opening, to be sure. And so generous of you to open up and share details. I think I speak for a lot of us.
5 people like this
CJ Walley My brother across the pond.
As kismet would have it, this came across my inbox this morning from best-selling author, speaker, and business leader Simon Sinek, "If a movement is to have an impact, it must belong to those who join it—not those who lead it."
Sinek became famous for his people first approach to helping business leaders find their way to the hearts of the people they serve, but his genuine approach rings true for anyone. I highly recommend his books.
4 people like this
Hey Richard Buzzell. A couple key distinctions with a difference to circle.
1) ISA did not, at any time, ever choose to call their system of writing opportunities an Open Writing Assignment - "OWA."
2) Stage 32 did, from inception until present, make a calculated decision -- clearly -- to name their system of writing opportunities, "OWA," which was an obvious and misguided effort to portray these Stage 32 opportunities as ones akin to REAL OWAs, which are available only to REPRESENTED WRITERS who have agents and agencies, who field the true open assignment projects from studios and others. And, yes, there are REAL TRUE ASSIGNMENTS -- J-O-B-S -- to be given on these real OWAs.
"Bypass the studios."
"Go direct."
"We have the access right here."
You know what, Stage 32, I have no issue whatsoever with your "selling the sizzle of access." It's true, there is a ton of wonderful, useful access on this platform. And each of the loudest voices on this thread here, including mine, will be the first ones to tell you that we see that, we love that, and that it has bona fide value. Importance. Benefits.
On the flip side, there is also 100% sloppy town going on here. I'm going repeat it, like a good screenwriter might often do for dramatic effect from time to time...
There is 100% sloppy town going on here.
From...
Giving things a truly misleading, deceptive, and inaccurate title, "OWA," to...
Not taking a more comprehensive approach to vetting "executives," some of whom appear to have very thin and questionable qualifications, far less than admirable ethics, and way below acceptable performance habits, to...
Having literally zero Fake OWA success stories whatsoever when it comes to the...
Option of scripts...
Purchase of scripts...
Or scripts moving forward...
In any fashion, with the...
Anonymous producers that Stage 32 personally assembles for their...
Fake OWA affair.
Indeed, I feel very comfortable and very confident in my assessment.
Niki H chimed in with the "solved and working on solving" tip.
Let's all hope that there's actually something substantial there, beneath the words.
Actions speak.
4 people like this
Thanks, Robin Gregory and you're welcome. That's 2 on this thread that have been helped; I'll take it.
3 people like this
Yes, thanks, Robin Gregory. And thanks for sharing your experiences, as well, with the execs who were less than stellar.
I want to share a bit of good news, just received. My semi-autobiographical feature comedy spec, The Gospel According To Flo, has been selected as a Quarterfinalist in The Script Lab's annual Free Screenplay Contest. As you might imagine, with anything free, especially a screenwriting contest, the numbers that pounce are tremendous.There were over 15K entries this year. So, as far as Quarterfinal finishes go, this one means more than most, on sheer numbers alone.
Script has had Top 5 finishes elsewhere. Been laying the groundwork for some key submissions to actor/singers to star.
Uh, the script is also 0 for 15 when it comes to those snazzy Stage 32 OWA things I've submitted on, with those anonymous producers in the shadows.
My middle name is Train, and I'll often enter contests under the name, Train Houston. Same dude.
The Gospel According To Flo
When a Black music biz exec turns up at the annual Family Reunion with his bubbly, fun-loving White girlfriend on his arm, long-held expectations are challenged and comedic sparks fly.
A music-centric ensemble comedy, I wrote it with Diana Ross or Patti LaBelle in mind to star as the Family's matriarch and music legend... who likes things just the way they've always been.
2 people like this
DT Houston That's so awesome! Congratulations! Wonderful to know Script Lab isn't cashing in on the contest, and truly showcasing. I love your title and concept. With your wicked sense of humor, it's gotta be a winner.
4 people like this
Me too, Anthony Murphy . CJ Walley and Script Revolution sound super cool.
4 people like this
Robin Gregory Script Revolution seems writer centric, so I dig the concept. I wish I had known about Script Revolution earlier, but only learned of it from this thread. Sign up and posting scripts are free, which is wonderful, but I think I'm going to sign up for a paid membership, and they are very affordable, a real deal to put eyes on your script.
2 people like this
DT Houston Congrats, DT. Free contests are some of the toughest to place in. Good job!
3 people like this
Yay, Anthony Murphy (and CJ) -- now that's 3 people helped by this thread. Love a hat trick.
4 people like this
I have literally read this ENTIRE thread from start to finish- taking notes! Laurie and DT THANK YOU. Spot on with your observations. For example from Laurie: " No producer is going to hand creative selection for a serious opportunity to inexperienced readers" AND more importantly there has been NO mention of an OWA EVER actually landing ANY $$ for a writer!! This is EXACTLY what is meant by 'transparency.' Nikki chimed in several times to 'protect the brand' but NEVER answered this question AND NO MENTION of who these 'pros' actually are who are 'reading' our scripts. DT - you have an amazing ability to cut through the BS here- ST 32 does, indeed, dangle the 'carrots' Paramount, MAX, etc, etc - but oddly NO MENTION if they have EVER actually BOUGHT ANYTHING from any writer on this platform! That does, indeed, seem at best, more that a bit 'fishy.' (Actually, truth be told, it downright stinks.) RB and Amanda you have truly created a 'money machine' here. But the OWA's are NOT what you claim they are and that is just plain deceptive. I too engaged the services of a ST32 pro to 'fine tune' a script. It became, however, a money pit with no end in sight and escalating demands for $$ which I finally had to pull the plug on. And finally, Anthony Murphy, maybe share with us how you landed the pitch sessions that resulted in script requests? I know you staed that the ones through ST 32 were useless- I feel much the same way- and I have purchased MANY of the $35 pitches that led NO WHERE.
5 people like this
I too have learned quite a lot from this thread, so Laurie Ashbourne and CJ Walley, and many others who have added their contributions, both big and small, thank you.
Thanks, Anthony Murphy, re: the contest. Yeah, you only get 1 submission on the TSL Freebie, so you've gotta figure everybody is likely tossing in their Best Closer. :>)
5 people like this
Rick Sabino I said I was burned out on pitching a couple months ago after a "pro" who I thought I had got along with during the Skype was ugly towards me. It pissed me off; it still pisses me off. But on St. Paddy's and on the 24th I tried it again here on S32, and I posted this elsewhere, but here's what I did:
On previous pitches, I made the mistake of memorizing and reciting my whole two page written pitch for my Skype meetings; but on my last two pitches I used only the intro paragraphs, then stopped and simply spoke to the producers like I was telling a friend about my screenplay, and—Voila—both producers requested the script. Doing this also took away all the pressure, which made pitching enjoyable instead of stressful. As a matter of fact, the second pitch that resulted in a request ended with a Skype time of only 6:54.
The first producer is a multi-talented creative that produces, composes and writes books and screenplays, and he's worked with Floyd Mayweather Jr., so since the screenplay I'm peddling is a boxing script ... And the second producer was unlike any pitch I've given, for he had his production team with him to hear the pitch, and that was pretty cool.
6 people like this
Script revolution has success stories tab where you can the updates. CJ also sends a monthly newsletter.
3 people like this
Asmaa Jamil Cool! Thank you. I'll check that out.
4 people like this
Anthony, I'm a big fan of Script Revolution...and I use it and Stage 32 to see if anything I've written resonates with readers. (I've had better luck with SR and 32 than I've ever had at entering contests.)
Hope you'll like Script Rev, too!
"I have literally read this ENTIRE thread from start to finish- taking notes! Laurie and DT THANK YOU. Spot on with your observations. For example..."
Rick Sabino thank you for your post and mention. It's like I mentioned previously in the thread, I fully trust everyone who reads these posts to be able to determine for themselves their own conclusions, and to ponder many of the points which have been brought forth by myself, Laurie Ashbourne , CJ Walley , as well as others.
I can assure everyone, including all employed by Stage 32, that I don't have an ax to grind. As mentioned, since becoming a Stage 32 member in mid-November, 2023 -- not even 5 full months -- I benefitted tremendously with my own individual career efforts through my utilization of Stage 32 Script Services, and then engaging with individuals who responded to my work.
Stage 32 provided critical access. They offer a big foot on the floor, which keeps a 4 inch door opening from shutting on you, on me, on anyone looking to secure that important access.
But by providing the all-important access -- for a price, of course -- without question, there must also be a commitment to assume and provide inherent and important responsibility, quality control efforts. There is a duty to protect... not just to serve... and take money.
This is a very, very big issue with respect to this Stage 32 platform, and I sure hope that some serious efforts are already being considered to rectify many of the issues which have already been shared in this thread.
In business, "exposure," is only beneficial when it's tied in with positive publicity. In any other context, it's a word that you never your business to be associated with.
When the quality controls are not where they need to be, when the vetting process seems to be less than stellar, when individuals brought into the circle of the business are doing things they should not be doing... that's not a good thing. For any business. Whatever the business is.
Of course, the lion's share of this thread has been about the broken, deceptive, wholly ineffective, OWA money-stream, which is paraded about as the "lookey what we have here that nobody else has!" Stage 32 "benefit." (Most certainly, always implied, if not always stated explicitly.)
As a group, we should think long and hard about whether we want to continue drinking this Kool Aid offering. As currently mixed and served up quite chilled, with an impressively cute and enticing "FREE with Membership straw," my opinion is that this drink tastes like poo-poo. And it's bad for us. Even if it doesn't quite kill us... and only drains us. I'm not a fan of the word drain. Unless I'm out on the hardwood, with a very hot hand in 3-point land. Then, we can talk drain all day long. Or until I miss.
Stage 32, until such time that actual benefits can be demonstrated with respect to the Fake OWAs...
Until it becomes something more than a whole lotta lip service, and...
Pom-pom shaking, and...
We love you guys, keep at it, and...
Atta boys and atta girls...
I only see one entity benefitting...
And it's not RB's so-called "Creative Army" here...
It's Player #32. And the name on the back of that jersey...
Definitely does not belong to any of us.
2 people like this
Jim Boston Hey Jim. Thanks! I signed up for a subscription account at SR this morning and uploaded my script. There is quite a list of deals made on there, so thought I would give it a try, and the subscriptions are so affordable. I don't enter contests unless they are free or very cheap, for I've heard too many agents and producers state that they couldn't care less unless its AFF or Nicholl's, because it's just some contest reader's opinion.
1 person likes this
Hey Anthony Murphy , let us know how it goes on SR! Do you think the Sundance & Austin Film Festivals or Page awards are not worth the cost?
1 person likes this
AFF is the Austin Film Festival and definitely a placement or win there will get you noticed and the same with the Nicholls. Page and Sundance have been growing in recognition though along with a few others like our own Stage 32 contests and Screencraft. The more entries and better connected the judges are the more it will help your career. But do not discount small contests helping you -- they are motivators and can give you the psychological boost or strength to keep writing or improve.
4 people like this
Robin Gregory I'm impressed with SR. There's been a lot of successes there. Like L. Tom Deaver wrote, those are the top contests. I personally prefer to invest in pitches rather than contests, but the ones you named are all top contests that will get attention for even placing.
Richard Buzzell Congrats, Richard! That's awesome!
3 people like this
Re: Contests, there's up and downs to everything. Contests are no different. But instead of diving into that rabbit hole and giving various thoughts there...
I'd rather share with everybody a little slice of my own battle scarred writer's body and soul, and it starts off with a concise but impactful piece of advice that was kindly given to me by a generous guy, who also happens to be a top flight manager of writers and directors. This occurred about 2 years ago.
First I'll tell you what he said. And then I'll tell you why I needed it hear it.
"It's a game of attrition, DT. The only surefire way to never make it, is to stop. To quit. To walk away. You must stay in. You must keep going. You must not become part of the attrition."
He would go on to share some incredibly supportive words about my talents, and strongly encourage me to stay in and keep going. All words I appreciate today more than he could ever possibly know.
Truth is, shortly after I had this conversation with this manager, I framed the sentence. It's now a constant reminder which hangs above my desk in my office...
"You Must Not Become Part Of The Attrition."
Mr. Manager also shared several stories of writers and directors that he had stuck by for years and years, while they toiled away in relative obscurity. They couldn't sell anything. They didn't land any jobs. All seemed hopeless. And then...
It happened. It all changed. But each had hung in there. Each continued to write. Each never stopped. And this manager never stopped, either. He'd had very similar conversations with his clients, just as he was having with me. And he'd also seen very gifted, very talented people... quit. And never make it. Quitting was the dealbreaker.
I should also mention that this manager did not think that his repping me was the best move for either of us. And, although I didn't realize it at that moment in time, he was 100% correct. Clearly, I was at a low point. He knew better than to get into business with each other while I was where I was. In a way, I think I was looking to be rescued. But he knew I didn't need someone else to rescue me. I needed to listen to the sage advice he had so wisely given to me, and then I needed to pick myself up, get back on the tracks, and make sure I wasn't heading toward becoming part of the attrition.
It was an important day in my life. Both in my growth as a man, and, secondarily, as a writer.
7 years prior, after more than a few people had repped me and believed in me, after a lot of opportunities and close calls and major-type things that tend to change lives pretty quickly, my career wasn't where I wanted it to be, or thought it should be. I also wanted to start a family. That takes more money. So, without it being a "I quit" moment, I hit the pause button, put on a suit and tie (I do love dressing sharp), and worked in Pharma for roughly 6 years.
And I didn't write one single word during that period. Toward the end of that time, out of the blue, my wife looked at me and said, "Happy much?"
I had made a fair amount of money. I had done the right thing. Provided. All that. But with my better half's two words, we both knew it was time for me to take off the suit and get back to what I was supposed to be doing. Two weeks later, I was unemployed and writing new words. And happy.
I gave myself 1 year to get repped. One day before the 6th month mark, I was repped. And repped by a top manager, who was at the peak of his game when the spec script market was booming. He was not quite at that powerband anymore, but he was still a well-respected rep, who 8 out of 10 writers -- both repped or unrepped -- would be thrilled to have in your corner.
Well, it was pretty much the worst damn experience of my life. I fired him once. Because I had to. When he heard I was going to sign with an agent, whom he knew quite well, he pretty much begged me for a second chance. I ignored my very intelligent wife's crossed-arms and foot-stomping, "No way!" and I gave the guy another chance.
Uhhhh, listen to your wife! Or husband! They know! Things got no better. That second chance turned into me having material in the marketplace with 8-10 producers, who I knew of via verbal conversations, but I didn't actually have a Tracking Sheet. Meaning, I didn't really know -- on paper -- where the hell my submissions were. When I demanded a Tracking Sheet from Mr. Second Time Around The Block...
The dude who was supposed to be working for me, refused to provide it...
And quit.
Via TEXT. (lol!)
To my wife's credit, she refrained from ever saying, "I told you so."
But, she knew she didn't have to. Her raised eyebrow said plenty.
And she still let me sleep in the bed.
That's love.
Which brings me full circle to that wonderful manager and human being, who, two years ago, despite never repping me...
Told me the words I needed to hear. The words that kept me going. The words that made me get it together. The words that helped me move forward and not dwell on what I could not change.
To everyone here, if you want something, keep at it. Keep going. Keep writing.
"You Must Not Become Part Of The Attrition"
DT
4 people like this
DT Houston 100% I believe the "You Must Not Become Part Of The Attrition" wholeheartedly. I phrase it a little differently in boxing terms—You got to keep punching. Don't give up and just keep punching.
3 people like this
I agree, DT Houston & Anthony Murphy . It's like that in most of the arts. I loved when G. del Toro said, "I'm a forty-year-overnight success!"
3 people like this
Without turning this into a thread about contests, if you are a WR member, there's a pretty good rundown in this thread: https://www.stage32.com/lounge/vip/Crack-down-time
3 people like this
There's some positive news to report about the OWA process. According to a Stage32 blog post, writer Sean Malcolm had a meeting with BCDF Pictures regarding a script that was an OWA selection.
2 people like this
If and when Stage 32 holds a Writers' Room Zoom Meeting, I want everyone to know that I will be putting forth a simple proposal which revolves around Stage 32 not just continuing to provide pay-for-play access and services at every turn...
But actually funneling a little bit of that SKIN WE PAY back into the game and investing in this Writers' Room and the members, whom Stage 32 is always quick to point out, they champion and support.
It's not a complicated proposal. It's not an expensive proposal. It's a proposal which will, without question, benefit both parties. Short term and long term.
I also believe it's a proposal which, if accepted and acted upon, could go a very long way toward showing the Writers' Room Membership that Stage 32 is hella-serious about making substantive, positive changes...
And willing to start at home plate, first.
3 people like this
DT Houston Next time you have a choice between an agent and a manager I hope you take the agent. Either way, you usually have to do most of the work yourself but most people will read a screenplay from a WGA Agent and that isn't the case with most Managers. Good luck either way.
3 people like this
Hey Dan Guardino. Well, these days, it's a real luxury if you're lucky enough to be in a position to have such a choice. Your point is well taken, though. Anyone can say, "I'm a manager." Not so true with a talent agent. At a certain level, when you're dealing with serious reps who have been working and repping talent for a period of time -- not brand new reps, just starting out -- the access to people and companies is largely the same. And agents and managers frequently operate in partnership, "sharing" clients, with each doing their different parts to help initiate and propel writers' careers to the next levels.
I would say that the proliferation of talent agents exiting agencies over the past decade or so -- maybe longer -- to become managers/producers, has totally TNT'd the line between agencies and management, anyway. Both reps primarily do the same thing, just in slightly different ways, goals, etc.Within the management ranks, I don't know what the exact percentage might be of former talent agents who are now managers, but it's definitely not low. And it's only going up.
I tell every newer writer I meet to pretty much forget about agents, as the Agency business model is not set to, "look for and break new writers." It's just not. By and large. Exceptions...? Sure. But, that great script you're working on right now, that you hope to put in front of eyeballs, stands a much better chance to get a champion from a Manager. And, most likely, that first champion you get on your side is going to be the Manager's assistant, or the Manager's intern, or Fido the company pooch, who decided he wants to produce movies, too! (Okay, maybe not, Fido.) And I'm not saying that finding a Manager to read your script is going to much easier than finding an Agent to read your script. There's not a big disparity there. It's all brutal. BUT managers deal with smaller numbers of clients and overall I think they take far more swings than agents. Agents tend to come in when most of the work has already been done, and that Manager is talking you up and telling the Agent, "This gal's f'in awesome. Whether her script sells or not, I don't know, but people are going to love her voice. We can get her working. And I think you'd be the perfect agent for her." And the agent says, "Okay, you never steer me wrong. I trust you. Send me the script. I'll read it this weekend."
That's pretty much how you get an agent these days.
So... write a fantastic script and do what you must to find some managers who think it's a fantastic script, too. And that includes looking at all the managers on Stage 32, which will cost you, of course, but at least you have that access point. I urge everybody to strongly consider that Stage 32 option. But do your homework, and know exactly who you are sending your work to...
3 people like this
DT
Once again- SAGE ADVICE> Definitely DO NOT become part of the attrition. AMEN to that.
3 people like this
DT Houston You are right that it would be difficult for a newer screenwriter to get an Agent to rep them. The only thing I know about Managers is what I have heard from other people. I know Managers used to get 15 percent but I heard a lot of them are now getting 10 percent which is all a WGA Agent can charge plus their out-of-pocket expenses to make a deal. I agree if a screenwriter wants a Manager they need a fantastic screenplay. However, most want to rep screenwriters who can write good screenplays regularly so the more screenplays someone has under their belt the better chance they have of getting one. I am not looking for a manager but if someone is you are writing they might want to consider trying to find one here and like you said check them out first. I am not a member of the writers’ room but I loved reading your posts and hope they make some of the changes that you suggested.
3 people like this
Thanks Dan Guardino. Glad that you were able to get some positive from this thread via the posts by myself and others. Re: the changes many of us hope will be forthcoming, I guess we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. There was certainly no shortage of frank opinions and strong suggestions. And I think everybody can be on the same page there. It's time to figure it out.
3 people like this
** You will need to be a Writers' Room Member to attend this ZOOM Webcast on the OWA issues **
Nick Phillips
Executive Liaison/Producer at Stage 32/PBR Streetgang ♦ Producer
posted in Writers' Room (Members Only) 18 hours ago
Writers Room OWA Webcast | Thursday April 11th, NOON PST
Hey Writers Room Members, please join me for a Writers Room Webcast this Thursday April 11th at Noon PST, in which we will cover some of the questions and concerns that have been raised in the lounge thread regarding OWA's...
https://www.stage32.com/lounge/vip/Writers-Room-OWA-Webcast-Thursday-Apr...
2 people like this
I will be there. Thanks for posting DT.
1 person likes this
My pleasure Asmaa Jamil