Just Make Media!

Loading...

Sunday, September 23, 2007

2007 SCREENLABS CHALLENGE WINNERS

On Saturday September 22nd the Screenwriters Workshop announced the winners of the 2007 "A Simple Twist of Fate" Screenlabs Challenge.


Jury Award Best Short Film

FORGOTTEN


Jury Award - Runner Up

BLIND FATE


Jury Award - Best Screenplay

Julie Kane Meyer for FORGOTTEN


Audience Award

BLIND FATE


The 2007 Jury was comprised of producer Christine Walker, producer/director Craig Rice, and Director of Photography Greg Winter with screenwriter Hafed Boussaida and Screenlabs producer Robb Mitchell. The audience award was decided online with 5718 votes cast and the winner edging out second place finisher by 19 votes.

Congratulations to the winners and all those who made it to the finish line!

9 comments:

Freddy said...

OPEN LETTER by Freddy Hall to Screenlabs and the Minneapolis film community. At the risk of pulling a Kanye West a la Vegas MTV video awards, I will do my best to pull my punches... Foremost I want to commend all screenwriters, actors and crew for daring to take a screenplay from page to screen. And I would also like to say that I am appreciative of screenlabs and it's staff for arranging such a challenge. And I'm really glad to hear they aren't folding to! But I must say that I am balked that we would dish out money for a audience choice award that ultimately amounted to how many times someone could vote for their own film. I hope no one was naive enough to think it was some five thousand random film devotees mouse clicking away for their favorites!
(I know I voted for my film a lot) It's a audience choice award, not a self-interest choice award. And while I believe Forgotten and Blind Fate were good amateur films, I don't feel they were unrivalled. It would have been a nice gesture by the panel of judges to include at least one other film in the winners circle. I figure some folks will post on here after me, scolding and chastising. But all I'm asking for is a fair playing field next year gang. And may the best films win.

David Erickson said...

No scolding and chastising here. Let's run it down:
1. Announcement of the challenge, with vagaries about the prize structure.
2. Silence for months, except for one workshop on making your film.
3. Announcement of the upcoming deadline with a change in the prize structure.
4. Deadline.
4a. Announcement of heretofore unmentioned "Audience Favorite Award", ostensibly to go to the filmmakers who can round up enough emails and friends, and computers with unique IP addresses (or enough proxy websites), not some actual "Audience" at some actual viewing of the films.
5. Obtuse and unworkable voting process. Change in prize structure.
6. Under-advertised new voting process.
7. Poor scheduling of presentation. Why would I wait around downtown for three hours after the SWW meeting?

I entered, I was distressed by the overt flakiness of Screenlabs, their amateurish management of their own contest, their idiotic enthusiasm while poorly presenting themselves, and the fact that the home page of their website
www.screenlabs.com is 5 years old.

I'm not interested in someone's ramblings about Sundance or whining about all they've done in the past and how long and hard they've worked, I'm interested in productive, accountable organizations that actually seem to have their act together. Now. Otherwise I can do fine on my own, and will.

David Erickson

Anonymous said...

This is all petty jealousy and envy. You guys are so OBVIOUS!

There are all kinds of contests and vanity competitions but this non-profit, all-volunteer, member organization actually hands out cash awards to short films that overwhlemingly won. It's a no-brainer. And unlike 48 Hours and some of the other "contests" Screenlabs actually GIVES filmmakers award money. There is no tricks or lies here. And I think if asses like you start shit-talking then they should completely stop doing it for the community.

You're just jealous because your film SUCKED! And so you turn and blame everyone else. Get some humility. There are way too many over-zealous egotistical people in this film biz who would cut other throats because of their inabilities instead of working to get better.

zoom zoom said...

Yeah, Screenlabs should stop offering idiots these opportunities. PERIOD. You guys suck!

Anonymous said...

I know most of the folks who do Screenlabs.
They work exptremely hard with no pay for jerks like you. You don't deserve it because you completely lack any talent at all.
especially Erickson
give it up idiot
look at how incompetitent the work is
that says it all
there are 3rd grade classes in Omaha
doing better films than you'll ever do
that's the hilarious thing about your rant

Freddy said...

I knew this blog would to turn into another one of those corny blogger name-calling affairs. Let's be original and attempt to contest matters without all the mellow-drama. As I stated earlier, I respect screenlabs for even bothering to hold a contest at all. And the dough was nice to. But the audience choice award was inconsistent and flawed. It reminds me of hanging-chads and the 2000 elections. People could vote for their own film as many times as they wanted. That's simply unfair. And Frankly I don't feel their were any crowning achievements in this contest. And I'm not excluding my film either. But I got the impression that the panel of judges were watching a two-horse race, when there probably should have been three or four ponies in the running.

Td said...

You're wrong Freddie. But I sense from previous discussions that getting inot any discussion with you would be a serious msitake. It invites flaming.
Every film had exactly the same playing film as the others when it came to voting online. Your hanging chads analogy is totally wrong and way out of line. In this case there is no paper ballot, no partially punched or fully punched holes, nor bias election judges, nor FOX TV projecting winners, nor Supreme Court picking a President in a 5-4 vote. But this is exactly a smoke screen strategy to create a false illusion of manipulation and deciet. You use an analogy that is so completely out of wack with reality that it shocks people in the intensity of its sensationalist accusation. It is dishonest at best.

Freddy said...

As I posted earlier, I'm trying hard not to be mellow-dramatic about the whole thing. But the fact of the matter is, people could vote as many times as they wanted to for their own film. That's asinine! So can I vote for Hillary Clinton as many times as I want next November? Give me a break. This context was flawed. And I would even go as far as to say that there was a bias amongst the panel of judges to. I'll state it again that I commend Screenlabs and the filmakers/writers. But if the program is going to have a leg to stand on anymore, it's going to have to improve and amend matters.

David Erickson said...

Yay team. Go team. Better? Bite me.