notes

Just your typical rewriting rigamarole

Maximum Z action, characters, comedy, confidence, determination, draft, editing, fantasy, feedback, ideas, notes, overthinking, perseverance, persistence, reading, rewrite, screenplay, screenwriting, script, story, writing , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Figuring out the rest of the story for the action-comedy spec continues, but there was a slight change of focus this week to the rewrite of the fantasy-comedy.

A lot of the story remains in place, but there are still some tweaks and minor adjustments that need to be made.

First was seeing what still worked. This involved the very-helpful writing out the entire story scene by scene, with a quick sentence stating the point of each. Or at least “here’s what’s happens here that moves things forward”.

I also dug up notes from the most recent round of readers – first-timers all. I’m still working my way through them due to the sheer volume of comments and suggestions. Some pretty good stuff, with lots about the characters and potential ideas of how to make them better.

One reader’s comments really resonated, mostly due to the fact that they pointed out something regarding the story I wasn’t aware I’d done. It was as if my subconscious was a contributing writer. Good when I do it intentionally, even better when it’s unintentional AND still works within the context of the story.

As I often do during the figuring-stuff-out phase – no matter what draft it is, I tend to overthink and cram too much stuff into the story. That’s something I want to try and avoid this time around. Like I said, most of this should only require some minor touch-up work, and I think I can limit the bigger changes to a relatively small number.

Once all of the changes are made, I’ll go through and trim the excess fat while fine-tuning it as much as possible.

Like with all of my projects for this year, progress may be slow, but it’s still coming along.

Still happy to help

Maximum Z community, encouragement, feedback, networking, notes, perseverance, persistence, San Francisco, screenplay, screenwriting, script, The Princess Bride, writing , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A few years ago, I wrote about some then-recent interactions I had within the screenwriting community. A lot of the sentiment still resonates, and this week saw a few more examples on display.

Last Friday was the San Francisco Writers Conference, and I was the coordinator/moderator for all of the panels for the Writing For Hollywood track. A good time was had by all, including panelists and attendees. It’s also why there was no post last week. (Want to go next year? Just click on the link in that first sentence.)

I didn’t get much of my own writing done because two writing colleagues asked for notes on their scripts, each saying “Don’t hold back. Be as brutal as necessary!” And I was. Well, maybe not brutal; let’s call it “critical, but in a positive way”.

I read each script twice, jotting down notes when needed. Both ended up jam-packed with sticky notes on almost every page with a comment, question, or suggestion.

Both writers were very enthusiastic about their notes. Maybe they didn’t agree with everything; at least a large percentage. Best of all – they were both eager to use those notes and start on the next draft.

And in the middle of all this, a friend referred me to a writing group interested in a screenwriting presentation. A few emails with the coordinator later, I’ll be running an all-day workshop later this year.

I’ve always said this is one of my favorite parts of the screenwriting community – lots of people helping others in one way or another, and that sentiment still rings true.

Writing is already a solitary experience, so when you get the chance to help somebody or somebody asks you for help, you should take it because not only is it good for both of you, but it’s a great reminder that you’re not alone in this.

Austin: A follow-up

Maximum Z Austin Film Festival, notes, screenplay, screenwriting, script , , , ,

A few weeks ago I received my notes from the Austin Film Festival, and they were… suspect.

Some further analysis led me to the conclusion that they’d been written by AI. I wrote to the festival to express my concerns, along with my disappointment that this had happened.

In all honesty, I didn’t expect to get a response. I figured they’d just ignore it or possibly something along the lines of “So what? You’re just one writer.”

But lo and behold, this email showed up earlier this week:

“Thank you for sharing your concerns and for your patience as we investigated this. We have reviewed your comments and script and determined that the first set of reader comments does not adhere to our standards. All scripts are read at least twice, and we have pulled another reader’s comments. We are reviewing each complaint on a case-by-case basis and removing readers who we have identified as not meeting our competition standards.”

This was followed by some notes that were definitely written by a human being. Case in point – AI wouldn’t reference a scene out of Despicable Me.

(Which also makes me wonder why they didn’t send the second set of notes in the first place. I imagine they can only send one set. Perhaps there’s no determining factor? They just pick one and send it.)

My takeaway was that yes, the one reader apparently did use AI for their notes.

I get it. Austin gets a ton of scripts sent in and they need readers. Lots of readers. And as far as I know, this is an unpaid gig where you must deal with an inordinately large workload.

But these readers also need to at least have a basic grasp of the fundamentals of screenwriting. From what I’ve heard, that’s not always the case. (e.g. “I liked the story. The characters are interesting.”) Hence the use of AI to generate notes, which doesn’t do anybody any good.

My plan for 2026 is all about revising and polishing this script and one other, plus completing an entirely new one. Despite this experience, I still like the idea of entering scripts into Austin, and may do that for 2027.

But it’ll also be interesting to see if there are more reports from both this year and next year of experiences similar to what I just went through, which could change my decision to “Think I’ll hold off”.

—

A friendly reminder that the window to send in the details about your script for The Maximum Z 2025 Script Showcase is open now until Thursday Dec 18, with the Showcase posting on Friday Dec 19.

All the details can be found here. Please read them carefully and make sure all your info is correct.

Planning ahead

Maximum Z action, Austin Film Festival, comedy, contests, determination, feedback, notes, perseverance, persistence, rewrite, screenplay, screenwriting, script, spec, strategy , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The aftermath of last week’s post about my more-than-questionable notes from Austin, along with a few sets of quality notes from actual humans, AKA trusted colleagues, on that script and another one, has made me realize that both scripts are pretty good, but have a lot of potential to be much, much better.

A lot of my focus these days is regarding the new action-comedy spec (which has seen some good progress over this past week), but after much consideration, I’ve concluded that it would be in my best interest in 2026 to not only get that one into fighting shape, but to also do some major work on the other two.

These rewrites will be especially challenging because this is when “kill your darlings” and “embrace the change” will be at the forefront of this strategy. I’m going to get in the mindset of being totally willing to make whatever changes are needed – but nothing too drastic. I don’t want to lose what was appealing about them in the first place.

There are still some notes to come in, but come January 1st, each day will see some kind of work on one of those scripts. Until then, it’s all about the new spec with the hope that I have a semi-decent outline by the end of this year.

Another aspect of this undertaking is totally skipping contests. I’d already drastically cut back, so this isn’t too much of a change. Better to have some really solid scripts ready for the following year, or at least as better samples for my manager to put out there.

I was initially hesitant to give this a try, but a very talented writer I know gave this a try and had some pretty amazing results. Not that I expect the same, but there’s no reason this will not only help my scripts improve, but also my overall writing skills. And it’s significantly better than not doing anything.

Fingers, as always, will be firmly crossed.

I have… concerns -OR- More than a few red flags

Maximum Z Austin Film Festival, feedback, notes, reading, screenplay, screenwriting, script , , , , , , , , ,

My script didn’t make Second Round for the Austin Film Festival, which I accept. It’s just the way it goes. Sometimes it clicks with the reader, sometimes it doesn’t. Nevertheless, I was looking forward to getting the notes back to find out what they had to say.

The notes arrived.

At first glance, they seemed okay. Maybe not addressing what they felt didn’t work, but more like “here are some issues you might want to address”. That… kind of makes sense. But there were also comments of how one very minor character should have been more developed(?), or that a major supporting character felt “secondary”(??), and that the protagonist should be more active in the first act(?!?).

Re: that last one – apart from a handful of scenes, she IS the first act.

Overall, the notes felt very odd, and somewhat unemotional; like they were missing something. Couldn’t put my finger on it.

Other writers were posting on social media that their notes felt as if they’d been written by AI. That gave me pause.

I read my notes again and realized some important components were missing, such as:

No mention whatsoever of the antagonist. AT ALL. Imagine discussing Star Wars and ignoring Darth Vader.

No addressing the very relevant detail that Acts 2 and 3 take place in New Jersey.

No mention of any other supporting characters.

No comments or thoughts about the jokes. In a COMEDY.

There are a few others, but these were at the top of the list.

I passed this info on to my manager, who put them into an AI detection program. The result said 85-90% AI.

I tried it with a different program. 100% AI.

I composed a civil and respectful email to Austin. I made a point of not ranting or raving, simply saying how disappointed I was to have experienced this. Whether or not they respond remains to be seen. Other writers have asked for a refund.

Austin averages around 14-thousand entries, so they need readers. But from what I understand, the quality of the readers, or least their analytical skills, have gone downhill over the past few years.

Quick sidenote – I was really hoping that when the Nicholl implemented their “one script per entry” policy a few years ago, Austin would follow suit. No such luck. Profit above quality once again.

I was an Austin reader a few years ago and always did my best to give quality notes, because as someone who enters scripts into a prestigious competition like this, it’s what I would expect. Don’t get me wrong -I’ve received more than my fair share of lousy notes from Austin, but at least I could tell they were written by an actual person.

When we write our scripts, we hope that readers and audiences will connect with them. That they’ll be able to relate to the story and characters. That they’ll be entertained.

Analysis by AI totally ignores that and sees only what’s on the page, not what it’s saying. It only knows what it’s been programmed to know. Notes via AI are doing a total disservice to the writer. It might identify if something’s not working, but it can’t explain why or make suggestions of how to fix it.

Like one of the signs at the 2023 writers strike said: “AI did not experience childhood trauma”.

I’d already drastically cut back on entering contests, with Austin one of the few I considered still worth entering. After this experience, I’m not so sure.