Stage 32,
LLC
23233 N.
Pima Rd., #113148
Scottsdale,
AZ 85255
www.stage32.com
Item(s)
Stage 32 + Mammoth Pictures Search for New Blood Screenwriting Contest
12th Annual Search for New Blood Screenwriting Contest
Your
Reader:
“Your
reader is a repped screenwriter whose written commissioned films for production
companies like Higher Vision Entertainment and sales/distribution giant
Imagination Worldwide. They have worked as a script consultant, screenplay
competition judge, and screenwriting teacher for over the last decade. As a
writer, they have even won a screenplay contest themself, so they know what it
takes for a great script to break through.”
My
rebuttal: Note how
they don't reveal who my readers / critics are... I'd be a lot more inclined to
listen to them if they had even a modicum of industry experience to their name
(I’ve never heard of Higher Vision or the “giant” Imagination Worldwide… both
sound like made-up cinematic names for evil corporations… Umbrella Corp., OCP,
etc.)... The fact that they don't reveal who they are makes me question
everything they say.
Furthermore,
apparently they never learned proper English. The sentence “They have worked
as a script consultant, screenplay competition judge, and screenwriting teacher
for over the last decade” is awkward to a maddening degree.
“As a
writer, they have even won a screenplay contest themself, so they know what it
takes for a great script to break through”… Oh, that super-reassuring!
Thanks! They are a repped writer, but you have to brag (childishly, and with
rather adolescent diction and syntax) that they won a script content… yikes! Have
they had a script they wrote produced? Who are they signed with? What are their
IMDB credits? If you’re not going to tell me any of these things, then I am
going to assume my reader is a nobody and you are exponentially inflating their
credentials in order to justify taking my money for this “coverage”. Incidentally,
I paid $100 for this nonsense. Serves me right. I overpaid by 100%.
Comment
Summary:
"Personal
Demons" showcases a bold, character-focused horror narrative with a strong
voice and cinematic style. Its blend of small-town authenticity and
supernatural fear feels like a modern take on "The Goonies", with the
young middle-school-age kids now as high school seniors. The script also loads
up on the horror references, both subtle and overt. For instance, Effie refers
to "The Exorcist" in both book and movie form, while the "Horror
Club" mirrors the "Hellfire Club" from "Stranger
Things". At the same time, the pacing in the first act lags as it conveys
each kid's home situation while postponing the main conflict. This issue could
be cleared by trimming some exposition. Some clarification on the demon's lore,
such as what it can and can't do, and tightening the first act would boost the
dramatic tension and narrative momentum. The script shines in its exploration
of themes involving grief, faith, and disillusionment among teenage outsiders. With
a few tweaks and a more emotionally impactful climax, this could evolve into a
remarkable coming-of-age horror film.”
My
rebuttal: The Goonies?
Really?! I was going more for The Monster Squad. Anyone who can’t see
that doesn’t need to be judging a horror screenplay competition. Incidentally,
I loved The Goonies when I was a kid (because it starred other kids, who
were having epic adventures). I recently re-watch it around Halloween of 2012
(when I was 32) and couldn’t recall why I liked that movie.
Also, I
wrote this script in 2015. A year before the first season of Stranger Things
premiered. The “Hellfire Club” was still 7 years in the future at that point.
“At the
same time, the pacing in the first act lags as it conveys each kid's home
situation while postponing the main conflict. This issue could be cleared by
trimming some exposition”… Yeah, that “exposition” they are referring to is
what we writers call “character development”. If I hadn’t included that, how
much do you want to bet they would have dinged me for lack of character depth.
“Some
clarification on the demon's lore, such as what it can and can't do”… Incidentally,
I do address this during the second act “Obstacles” (according to Syd
Fields’ three-act hard-and-fast structural rules).
“With a
few tweaks and a more emotionally impactful climax”… Ha! First time I’ve
ever received that criticism. The ending is one of the things readers of my
script have pointed out as being one of its strongest parts.
Formatting:
“The
script features professional formatting, with clear slug lines, centered
dialogue, and vivid action lines that create a cinematic feel. Character
introductions are brief and visually distinct. However, some action paragraphs
and descriptive passages stretch beyond the standard five lines. These lengthy
passages make the pages read more like a novel than a screenplay, which can
make the task of reading feel like a slow chore. By breaking lengthy blocks
into smaller segments, the script becomes more readable and closer to a
"visual" document than a novel. Keep in mind the rule of thumb:
create a paragraph break between each distinct visual image. Parentheticals and
ellipses appear too often. If the parentheticals indicate a specific action or
movement, move them to action lines, as some dialogue exchanges require brief
action cues to keep the rhythm. The use of clearer transitions for time jumps
and montages with standard cues like **MONTAGE:** or **SERIES OF SHOTS:** could
also improve readability. For the most part, the formatting is solid but needs
refinement for a quicker, smoother read.”
My
rebuttal: “The
script features professional formatting, with clear slug lines, centered
dialogue, and vivid action lines that create a cinematic feel”… Yikes, this
is seriously something you look for?! If a script is professionally formatted?!
You realized that uncountable websites and software (Final Draft, etc.) that
people can use to achieve this, right? Why is this even worth mentioning?
“However,
some action paragraphs and descriptive passages stretch beyond the standard
five lines”… Yup, never heard of this “standard” before. Sounds like bunkum
to me.
“These
lengthy passages make the pages read more like a novel than a screenplay, which
can make the task of reading feel like a slow chore”… Ha! I guess if you
don’t like reading (especially novels) this can feel like a chore. I’ve been endlessly
complimented on Personal Demons’ “novelistic” (a non-word people in
Hollywood use to mean “actually well-written”) prose.
“Parentheticals
and ellipses appear too often”… Okay, clearly these yahoos have never read
a book on screenwriting… or taken a screenwriting course… or, you know, passed a
high school English class.
“The
use of clearer transitions for time jumps and montages with standard cues like
**MONTAGE:** or **SERIES OF SHOTS:**”…
Yeah, at this point they are criticizing just to criticize. I do label time
jumps with those distinctions. What script were they reading? Wasn’t mine,
apparently.
Character
& Dialogue:
“The
script delivers sharp character voices and realistic teen interactions. Each
Horror Club member feels real. Conrad’s grief, Effie’s defiance, and Arnold’s
awkward intelligence anchor the supernatural in emotional truth. Dialogue
reflects adolescent rhythms: funny, quick, and self-aware without feeling
forced. The exchange, “don’t cross the streams,” between Conrad and Effie
blends humor with horror perfectly. Some characters lean too much on
stereotypes. Effie sometimes appears as a typical “goth girl,” and Conrad’s emotional
journey of dealing with loss and belief after his mother's death needs more
clarity. Side characters like Jeremiah and Arnold lose focus past the midpoint,
which leaves the script missing out on chances for their characters to develop
or emotionally impact the viewer. Dialogue occasionally slips into exposition
or obvious statements (“You disappoint me”) that minimize the subtext. One
option to remedy this issue involves giving each teen a unique verbal style.
The dialogue can show Conrad as intellectual, Effie as sardonic, Arnold as
literal, and Jeremiah as anxious through their speed, volume, and choice of
words. The script could also do more in later acts to show how adult figures
like Mr. Hauer or Conrad’s father highlight generational themes of fear and
faith. Much of the script's characterization and dialogue remains strong, but
refining emotional arcs and deepening subtext would further enhance its impact
and authenticity.”
My
rebuttal: “The
script delivers sharp character voices and realistic teen interactions” … Wow.
Thank you. This is the first time anyone has admitted this.
“Some
characters lean too much on stereotypes. Effie sometimes appears as a typical
“goth girl”… yup, the praise was minimal. Now time for the criticism. I disagree
with this assessment of Effie and it’s the first time I’ve heard said
criticism.
“…and
Conrad’s emotional journey of dealing with loss and belief after his mother's
death needs more clarity”… How much do you want to bet that, if I’d focused
more on this character trait, they would have said that it “slows down the pace
and is unnecessary to the story”?
“Side
characters like Jeremiah and Arnold lose focus past the midpoint, which leaves
the script missing out on chances for their characters to develop or
emotionally impact the viewer”… Never heard this criticism before. Honestly,
with an ensemble piece with 4 main characters, two (or one) is going to emerge
as the protagonist(s) and the other will fall into the peripheral. I think I
did a commendable job of giving them their due screentime and development.
“The
script could also do more in later acts to show how adult figures like Mr.
Hauer or Conrad’s father highlight generational themes of fear and faith”… I’ll
give them credit in that they accurately identified two of the themes I was
going for: generational divide and faith. However, the adult characters don’t
need all that substance… anymore than, say, the voice on the other end of the information
line for The Substance (in the film of the same name) needs development. In
this instance those characters are there to represent secondary antagonists:
they create obstacles for our protagonists. Nothing more. The adult characters
are, however, given development when their children (the main characters) are
introduced.
Plot
& Structure:
“The
script creates a gripping mix of small-town realism and supernatural horror. It
features an engaging cast and relatable themes. The story centers on
horror-loving teens who confront a real demon, which serves as the supernatural
basis for their real-world problems. The first act effectively sets up
characters and tone. The midpoint trap scene with holy water stands out as a dynamic
turning point. Still, the "domestic scenes" drag down the pacing
before the inciting incident. The demon attack on Wolfgang occurs around Pages
20–25, where a typical script would have it happen 10 pages sooner. Conrad’s
journey from skeptic to believer shows promise but lacks clarity. By giving him
a deep emotional need, such as seeking redemption for past mistakes or
protecting his surrogate “family”, his role could have a clear direction. After
the successful trap in Act II, the tension slowly drains, and the story loses
its narrative momentum. The climax successfully externalizes the horror but
could resonate more with audiences if it were linked to Conrad’s internal
conflict. The resolution should deliver thematic closure by illustrating how
survival alters each character's perspective. With improved pacing, a more
proactive protagonist, and a sharper emotional conclusion, "Personal
Demons"
My
rebuttal: “Still,
the "domestic scenes" drag down the pacing before the inciting
incident. The demon attack on Wolfgang occurs around Pages 20–25, where a
typical script would have it happen 10 pages sooner”… ugh! First, it’s called character
development. I can’t kill these characters before the audience gets a chance to
know them and care about whether or not they live. Second, this is the second
time someone has said “your ‘horror hook’ (I guess they mean the death that is
the inciting incident) needs to come earlier in the film!”… To that, all I have
to say : Marion Crane dies 44 minutes into Psycho. Tina dies nearly 20
minutes into Nightmare on Elm Street. Those are two hit movies that have
turned in franchises. Their IPs are still being exploited today. I rest my
case.
“Conrad’s
journey from skeptic to believer shows promise but lacks clarity. By giving him
a deep emotional need, such as seeking redemption for past mistakes or
protecting his surrogate “family”, his role could have a clear direction” …
Yeah, I have no idea what they’re talking about here. This is the first I’ve
heard this criticism.
“After
the successful trap in Act II, the tension slowly drains, and the story loses
its narrative momentum” … Yup, first time I’ve heard that as well.
“The
climax successfully externalizes the horror but could resonate more with
audiences if it were linked to Conrad’s internal conflict. The resolution
should deliver thematic closure by illustrating how survival alters each
character's perspective” … I love how they give me criticism, but not how to
fix it, making it empty quibbling. Incidentally, how do I show have the ending
alters each characters’ perspective without bogging the narrative down with an unnecessary
epilogue? Also, why are they so stuck on Conrad and his metamorphosis? Is it important?
Sure. But this is also an ensemble piece. You can’t tell me one specific character
need to have this epic arc and evolution and then tell me all the other
characters need their catharsis as well. This is not a 2-hour movie. It’s a 90-minute
movie.
“With
improved pacing, a more proactive protagonist, and a sharper emotional
conclusion, ‘Personal Demons’ could create a powerful blend of horror and
coming-of-age drama” … Well, all these just sound like excuses. I’ve never been
told that Conrad is not a “proactive protagonist”, and I’ve never been told
that the conclusion (or script as a whole) lacks emotional depth or clarity
(they kept using that word, ironically, to cover up the fact that their
feedback so was irritatingly vague). As for the pacing, well, again, I followed
Syd Fields’ three-act structure, so…
My
main takeaways:
They were more complimentary than the last few rejections (who offered
coverage) were. But a lot of their criticisms were either out of left field (as
in, I’d never been told these were problems before) or seemed like excuses for
rejection. I base this, as I said, on their incredibly vague condemnations for
which (most of the time) they give no solid method or example as to how I might
correct this deficiency. But, alas, even though I do appreciate the praise they
gave me (they are the first to admit that my characters act and speak like
regular teenagers), I still regard Stage 32 as an enormous scam meant to
separate desperate (and naïve) writers from their cash while touting a handful
of “industry insiders” as confirmation of their legitimacy.
Note: Sometimes I
wonder (fear) that I do not take criticism well. I know I take it too
personally, if nothing else.
I
also sometimes wonder if my rebuttal to the criticism I receive isn’t valid.
Insecurities then creep in and I question my talent as a writer and the
marketability of my work.
But
if my rebuttals were invalid, how then am I able to synthesize them so quickly
in response?
Regardless,
I have to constantly remind myself that: 1.) feedback/coverage from pitchfests
and film fests are just that… and not rejections directly from an agent,
producer or studio. 2.) Criticism, like anything else, is largely subjective
and is guided by the critic’s personal aesthetic, preferences and what they
(sometimes pretentiously, sometime accurately) believe to be industry-standard
information. 3.) As it pertains to Personal Demons, that screenplay has
had more wins than losses, so any criticism I receive, I take with a truckload
of salt.
