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.