Fifty-Hour Film Contest Release Form: Fill & Download for Free

I'm sorry, but I see a lot of answers here that make a lot of assumptions and claims that just aren't ultimately true.The fact is there are a lot of talented people making a lot of great films. The primary reasons that there is a great deal of just average or mediocre content is that there is so much content in the first place.Look at your TV a moment and think about how many channels there are. Now think about how many hours each of those channels has to fill with content. How many shows does every channel have in a given day? And how many channels are there? And if a show doesn't quickly attract viewership, it can't sell advertising, and there are only so many viewers available, and so stations end up going through an awful lot of ideas and attempts.The numbers involved mean that the constant need to generate new shows and fight for limited viewers is going to result in throwing a lot of ideas up that don't work.And sorry, but I gotta say I've not seen anyone bother to mention the fact that we can all name a long list of great shows nobody bothered to watch, because they were all watching some lousy reality show instead. But none of the answers so far has mentioned "content is driven by where the viewers are, so any complaints need to put blame on viewers as well." When the best dramatic show ever produced for television, The Wire, was doing its best to get people to just give it a chance and watch it, audiences couldn't be bothered because hey, you gotta keep up with which star won the dance contest tonight, or which new person off the street got Simon's approval to keep singing. There's voting going on here, remember, so the voters should be mentioned if there's going to be significant complaint about the quality and everyone involved who has bad taste or is a hack or to blame etc.This goes for film as well. The fact is that there are so many films made every year, and so many different sorts of taste involved, and there's a need to try to appeal to audiences that are increasingly not bothering to even show up anyway because they can sit at home watching TV and DVDs etc. Films are made for the people who show up, and the fact is film viewing is being increasingly ceded to a few small demographics, so it's kind of hard to complain about the fact filmmakers are making films for the people bothering to show up to see them. And it's not as if audiences started to just stay home because of the films being made more and more for select demographics -- the downward trend of theater viewing has been going on a long time, and has continued apace despite the fact that the denunciation of film quality ignores a rise in high quality independent films lately, and that there have been increases in quality in several key genres that dominate box office over the years.Look at our Oscar nominations this year -- ten films nominated for Best Picture, and you could randomly pick any five of the films and have a damn solid list of films. And there are another dozen films at least that could've been nominated but weren't. When's the last time you can think of a year with that many films that were seriously high-quality Oscar contenders for Best Picture? Then there were lots of films that weren't Oscar worthy but were still great, and many more that were really enjoyable and fun, and then plenty that were average to okay. People forget this, though, and tend to perpetuate the cliche that most films are all just garbage and that viewers are just stuck with no choices, when that's honestly just a false depiction of the reality.Luckily, this past year not only saw a rise in high quality film fare, it also saw audiences rewarding such films by actually bothering to go see them for a change, and actually bothering to withhold money from several bigger budget "event" films. If you want to see better films and better TV, the easy way is to vote with your viewership, it works wonders because I guarantee you that in every studio the thing they are singularly most worried about is investing tens of millions of dollars into films that nobody bothers to see, and so they pay very close attention to what everyone does actually go see, and then they try to do that again and again.Films cost millions of dollars to make, market, and release. Like it or not, nobody is going to invest millions to make films that are financial failures but make a few people happy because it's just the sort of art house film that small group wants every film to be. I love good film, including great art house films, but the fact is that most people don't go see those kinds of films, and there's no rational reason for a studio or financiers to risk millions of their dollars on films that are unlikely to get an audience.When investing that much money, they want as many safeguards as they can get to try to stem the risks, and that includes being conscious of the films people are actually showing up to see. It also includes a desire to use "brands" that audiences already know about (because if people have bought it before, there's a better chance they might buy it again), to use faces audiences are familiar with and like already, and to make the film in a way that has appeal to as many people as possible.Those are all standard elements that make a lot of sense, actually, and none of it inherently means "bad quality." And plenty of films that fall into those categories are in fact very good or great films. The truth is that we all actually encourage it, too. Answer me this: how often have you ever said "I can't wait for the new Coen Brothers film"? or "Woody Allen film" or some other specific writer/director? That's branding, that's the familiar face. That's you, proving studios are right to care about those exact things.Yes, you say "but I like those filmmakers because their movies are good!" And guess why every single person everywhere also prefers films by this or that filmmaker or star or writer etc? Because they like them, the same reasoning you use. You happen to think your taste is better, but other people think their taste is better, and so on. The point is, studios know we all do that and so they are mindful of it, and there's not too much point in begrudging them their assumptions that are exactly right.Filmwriting is indeed hard, as one answer at least notes. But make no mistake, Hollywood wants good screenplays, it looks for them and there is always a fear that they have missed some great screenplay or that another studio will discover the next big talented writer. But what too few people realize is the sheer volume of screenplays any give producer might receive in a year. The number is in the THOUSANDS. Imagine if you had to read ten to twenty books every week for your job. Imagine instead it's maybe fifty to one hundred. Imagine they keep coming, by mail and by email and dropped off by everyone you know or the friends of your friends, by professional writers and actors and people with money and anyone who sneaked into your office. Thousands and thousands of them, every year. How would you handle that, how would you sort through it all and find the good ones?You think you know, but chances are if you've never read a screenplay you don't realize what a good or bad script necessarily even looks like. Those scripts you might see online and read, or the ones at the bookstore? That's a shooting script, meaning it's already been taken and rewritten, it's had the shot cues and direction etc added in (all of the angles and POV -- point of view -- shots and "cut to" stuff you see in a script, which is not there in the first script). The first versions of scripts just have the dialogue and the short action/description paragraphs. And if you've never seen a raw script as it usually first arrives at a studio or in someone's hands in Hollywood, you don't realize how tough it is to judge their quality.Because a film is purely visual, it's not literature and not meant to be "read" on pages. But that's the strange contradiction of screenwriting, it has to be written on a page, it has to be "literature" of a sort that is really just a mistaken depiction of a purely visual medium. What you write as a screenwriter is not the final form of your art, someone else has to take it and then turn it into what it really is supposed to be. The screenplay is a strange, in-between stage.Here, try this -- describe a great painting that I've never seen, and do it in a way that tells me if it's really a great visual artistic achievement or not. Don't use adjectives like "beautiful" or anything, I mean just describe the image and colors and use your words to give a sense of style. But use words to describe paintings, in a way that makes it clear whether this is a painting in an art gallery or a painting by your nine-year-old kid. Convey, in your words, the actual inherent quality of the painting, so that anyone reading it who is not themselves a painter can tell "this is a great painting they are describing" or "this would look terrible!"How hard do you think that will be? Now you have some idea of what screenwriting is like, except we aren't describing an existing painting we already saw, we invent the images in our minds and then have to purely compose the visuals with black ink on a plain white page. And then other people have to look at it and tell if we came up with an idea for a really great painting or not. And sometimes you don't know until you see it.I assure you, if I showed you the original draft screenplays for several great films, you'd be surprised. I just read the purchased draft of a screenplay for a terrific comedy that I loved last year, that many people loved and that in fact got very good reviews. Except the original script reads... not quite great, to put it politely.Likewise, did you love the film Alien? Go read the original screenplay. Seriously, you can find it online, and most people who've never seen it before are stunned when they read it. I won't spoil it for you, because it's one of the most unexpected experiences you can have reading a screenplay, but suffice to say, it will perhaps change your perspective on how easy it is to tell a screenplay that will result in a great film or not.And I've seen really great screenplays that resulted in bad films, too. Sometimes it just looks better on the page, or other times it indeed gets rewritten and watered down and changed until it's a mess.But there's a reason studios use what's called "coverage" on scripts, with readers paid to look over scripts and then assess their quality in several areas before making recommendations on whether a screenplay should be considered or not. These readers, like the producers and studios, get thousands to read every year, so there are things that tell them if a writer is serious or not, if a writer should be trusted with their time or not, and if it's worth moving past the first page. This is honestly why you will find a lot of seemingly odd rules about how scripts must "look" or be bound etc to be accepted -- and rest assured, deviating from those rules, for first time writers, can mean your script is never read. Why? Because the rules are so easy to find online, in books, or by just calling a studio to ask, that if you still don't bother to follow them, it means either you were too lazy to bother or too lazy to care. Or it means that from day one you don't respect the readers and their rules. Regardless, it will get your script filed in the special can for such things, and promptly recycled at a paper plant.The sheer volume of scripts coming in is such that they need ways to weed out the weakest ones at the start, to deflect the ones from people who haven't honed their skills enough or who don't understand the process and the rules. This can seem cold and cruel when it happens to you, but there is a reason behind it and there's no way they'd ever even get through a fraction of the scripts if they accepted them all. You may think "it's just a minute of their time, if they'd just look at the first page!" but multiply that times all of the people every day seeking "just a minute" for that first page, and they'd run out of "just a minutes" very quickly.This isn't to deny the fact that a lot of bad choices get made, or that a lot of people get by on little talent, or that it's common for ulterior motives or reasons etc to weigh more on decisions than concern for a quality screenplay. The desire to find out "what's hot right now" and then replicate that as fast as possible can and does result in some regurgitation of premises and the flood of sequels and remakes and reboots and adaptations and spin-offs that seem to dominate theaters (it's a myth, though, that "most" films are those sort, if you actually simply count how many of those kinds of films come out in a year -- they are just often the most high-profile). But again, this is because they are listening to audiences votes, and if you go look at the top grossing films year after year, what are the films that people turn out to see in droves? Yep.But again, there's so much constant focus on the claims that ideas are dead and originality isn't appreciated and studios just make nothing but bad films etc, and I think it's a refrain that drowns out the real truths at the heart of these matters, ignores the role of audiences in driving content, ignores the truth about how much good writing and filmmaking takes place, and ignores the truth about how hard it is to even write really good screenplays or to read one and tell if it's good or not. So I hope I've provided an alternative voice to the majority of opinion that films and TV are just dominated by garbage and that it's the fault of an industry controlled by untalented, money-grabbing hacks who know what quality is but refuse to provide it or who just can't tell crap from gold. Because while some people definitely fit into the caricatures and pigeonholing, most in fact don't, and the whole process is a lot more complicated and a lot harder than I think people realize sometimes.And I hope some of you will try thinking up a painting and then describing it with just words (and no technical directions of brush type or style etc, you must convey it all through the writing itself without overt technical references) and see if you think it's easy to write that way, but more importantly see if you think it would be easy to read it and tell if it would make a great painting or not. The latter is the equivalent of taking original drafts of screenplays and deciding to invest millions of dollars of other people's money into making it, and hoping it has the things it needs to attract enough audience to make back the money and turn at least some profit.Hollywood is filled with talented people in every field. And it's full of producers and studios who want to find good screenplays and good ideas, and who want to give audiences what they want, and who would spend the rest of their lives producing low-budget independent high-quality Oscar-caliber films if audiences regularly showed up to make such films hundreds of millions of dollars every year. This past year was a good start, there were several lower-budget films that performed quite well. If this year shows a repeat of that kind of business for such films, you can be sure Hollywood will start thinking up new plans to invest in those kinds of films because that's what brings people to the movies. But also know that all of those superhero films and sci-fi action blockbusters are probably going to make hundreds of millions of dollars, and some will make a billion bucks, so Hollywood won't abandon them because audiences certainly aren't.EDIT: Just wanted to add that I don't mean offense by saying some of the claims etc being made aren't true -- it's a matter of mistaken perceptions, the widespread assumptions and beliefs people have about Hollywood and the quality of film/TV etc, so I'm really talking about how those assumptions and perceptions are wrong and that the stereotypes are perpetuated and that's why people tend to assume those things are true. Hopefully nobody mistook my comments as meant to chastise or insult anyone here, it definitely isn't meant that way.EDIT #2: I've seen the GQ article The Day the Movies Died referenced or quoted etc a lot lately, and so I'd like to respond to some of it. It's a very nice, well-written article, but I think it ultimately relies on the same problem of stereotyping and oversimplification, and a lot of mistaken assumptions that everyone tends to just accept as "truisms."My biggest complaint is that such articles make the typical listing of offending films, namely sequels and reboots and prequels and adaptations etc, without putting it into perspective. The article lists 14 upcoming films that fit into those categories, to make a point about how prevalent such films have become. Let's try something, though -- let's assume the article only bothered naming half of such films, bumping the actual number up to 28. Then let's round that up to 30. And now let's also just heap on the assumption that there are another 15 films (adding 50% to our total) that are so strongly inspired by or rip off etc actual other franchises or books or TV shows etc that they deserve to be included in our accounting.Okay, this gives us 45 films now. Right? And that overtly inflated number represents about 22.5% of all films released in a given year. Meaning 78% of the rest of the films won't be anything in that broad category. In other words, after counting them up and then rounding them up and then tacking on another half again, that STILL leaves more than three-fourths of all films as things other than this type of stuff the article is trying to convince us has become rampant and dominant.So that's my first complaint -- these notions that movies have "died" and are being overrun by sequels and remakes and no originality etc depends on accounting that would get you an F on a final exam.My next complaint is that the article makes a great deal of the supposed problem of demographics and target audiences, denouncing the "quadrant" as marketing-obsession and how unfair and film/originality killing it is to engage in dividing people up into such groupings and relying on such generalizations to divide the marketplace.I'd at least take the sincerity of those complaints more seriously, if it were not wrapped in an assertion that this has happened after a previous, more acceptable situation in which... the year was split up into generalized groupings for targeting certain kinds of films at certain kinds of audiences, and in this "good old days" the summer was a short period for the acceptable dumping of wham-bang spandex and action entertainment that is (according to an article bemoaning generalizations and demographics) merely a bunch of easily pigeonholed film genres made for -- and I quote -- "ADD-addled, short-term-memory-lacking, easily excitable testosterone junkie[s]."The article goes on to assert that these types of films are essentially junk food for emotionally and mentally stunted adults, as part of a studio trend toward promotion of arrested development in the population so that everyone becomes one big target demographic based on the stereotype of the young adult male. Hence, everything becomes comic book sequels that "blow things up real good."But I submit that the entire above paragraph's concept is itself just one big demographics-crunching cliched outlook that is founded on belief in generalizations, demographics, marketplace groupings, and in short everything the article purports to be complaining about in the first place. And to boot, most of the assumptions there are wrong, too.The fact is that most films are not those types, as already noted. The fact is that the "endless summer" notion the article hypothesizes is actually the END of summer because traditional stereotyped notions of seasonal breakdowns of film performance are blurring as different film "seasons" overlap one another because viewer habits are no longer confined to those traditional stereotypes. That's why the release of "Oscar films" is no longer primarily limited to a few months at the end of one year and the start of another. Four of this year's Best Picture nominees came out in the summer. Several other potential and (at the time of their release) expected nominees also came out much earlier in the year as well.One of the primary reasons that we are seeing the so-called expansion of the summer film season (meaning films traditionally released in the summer are being released all year round now) is that the focus of certain kinds of films toward more narrow target audiences is less controlling. This is because, among other causes, young females (and females in general) are asserting themselves as a profitable audience; because foreign profits have come to dominate box office receipts; because audiences are starting to attend films outside of their typical pigeonholed "genres;" and because many of those reasons (but especially the last one) are taking place due to a cycle in which smarter, better-made films of certain genres are being made, which lures older and more diverse audiences, which in turn drives studios to try to broaden the appeal of other types of films, which expands audiences again, and so on.With home entertainment and other economic factors causing a steady decline in theater attendance, studios know that films need to reach out and pull in broader audiences than before, and appeal to previously ignored audiences, and to mix and match viewers to remain competitive. Just to take the whipping boy used in the article, compare modern films in the superhero genre to such films from the past. It used to be that the higher quality films of this genre were the exceptions, but nowadays the exceptions are the bad ones. The films are being written in a way that means any of the supposedly stupid, immature, teenage audience are now being exposed to much smarter and better quality films of that genre, while people who used to ignore such films now get exposed to them because the genre has improved to the point that serious minded people watch them and think they are legitimate artistic achievements.Yes, comedies are raunchier as our tastes and standards have changed over time, but I submit that there is in fact a lot of smart humor being produced nowadays, witty and mature humor that also pushes boundaries and makes us think. I think there's evidence that even sillier, immature humor has seen more examples lately of a better quality of low quality, if that makes sense.I think the articles' notion that the average "good" film has decreased in quality is mistaken -- I think what the article is noticing, but misidentifying, is that the average for "bad" has improved. Typically throw-away films have achieved at least certain basic levels of technical skill that sometimes they fool us into thinking they are better than they are. Meanwhile, I submit that the average "good" films are in fact getting better, and that there are a lot more "good" to "great" films being made.As I noted previously, just look at the nominees for Best Picture last year, then the contenders that were strong but didn't get a nomination, and we're talking about around two dozen films -- a number of potentially Oscar-worthy Best Picture contenders. People can point all day at the 1970s and say how great the classic films of that decade were, but the truth is that we are wearing rose-colored glasses when we act as if it was a period of unmatched filmmaking quality. Yes, many great films were made, there's no question of that. But pick any given year and try to name two dozen films that could be Best Picture, and then count what percentage of films were lousy.The truth is that people forget this was an era of lots of exploitation films, of a lot of bad drive-in fare, of cheap horror and sci-fi with terrible production values, and that a look at films of the 1970s reveals every bit as high a percentage of average or "less" films. The problem is that nowadays, there are just so many more films released and modern media marketing means you are more likely to hear about and even possibly see a larger percentage of those average or "less" films.The article is honestly just a rehash of a lot of claims and complaints that have been circulating for decades now, it relies on a series of pigeonholing and stereotypes and cliches to denounce the very same supposed things in filmmaking, and it makes sweeping assumptions based on a few examples that are treated as a dominant trend or norm when in fact it's just a small portion of films being given disproportionate attention. I think that twenty years from now, some new article will be bemoaning what it will assert is the actual Day the Movies Died, and twenty years after that someone else will still be making the claim. And probably all of them will still rely on the same stereotyping and misreading of what's been going on, and blinded by rose-colored glasses they use to look back at the cinema of long gone days.

Most contracts for reality tv are far over-reaching for the sheer effect that it discourages litigation. Since a lot of money goes into shooting and the air dates are so far away, these contracts can sound awful, but they are necessary to keep the secrets that make the shows so watchable.Here are the highlights:Paid $10k for the “exclusive” to keep quiet.Option to appear on other shows, they are guaranteed a feeIf they make it to the final four, they are paid extra.They are explicitly told they are filmed 24/7, they could be embarrassed, edited in a negative light, edited in a manner that is not true for dramatic affect, etc.Highlights Part Two:If they appear on Extra TV as a host, they can be paid $150k per year.ABC hold the “exclusive for two years if they final contestants get married. This means they can’t sell photo deals to People, US Magazine, etc. Also, they will be paid a compensation fee if they get married on TV.They have a non disclosure agreement and can be sued for up to $5 million dollars if they disclose ABC secrets, go on unapproved interviews, etc. etc.If lawsuit goes to arbitration, ABC is guaranteed $250kHere is the main portion of one contract:Below, are portions of the Bachelor/Bachelorette contracts that contestants sign. The original document is 22 pages long and certain clauses of the contract have been highlighted to view. (Caveat: My 100 page reality tv contracts that I was supposed to have all my contestants sign, I edited out the portions that I as talent could never sign. As a producer I would never ask my talent to do anything I wouldn't do. That is not looked upon well by the attorneys that don't like their shackles watered down).“THE BACHELORETTE” RELEASE AND WAIVER, AGREEMENT NOT TO SUE, INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT, AND PARTICIPANT AGREEMENTI ____________________(“I”, “me”) and AND Syndicated Productions, Inc. (“Producer”) have entered into the (1)Program Appearance Authorization andRelease; (2) Request and Authorization for Disclosure and Redisclosure ofMedical Information; (3) the Psychological Evaluation Release Form; (4) theConfidentiality and Nondisclosure Agreement; (5) Videotape/Stills License; andI have completed the short from Bachelor/Bachelorette Application and the long form Participant Questionnaire; all relating to the television series currently entitled “The Bachelorette” and any version thereof (the “Series”). In consideration of and as an inducement to Producer entering into this Agreement and further considering me to become either the Bachelorette or a Bachelor, as applicable, in the Series (the Bachelor and the Bachelorettes will be individually referred herein as a “Participant”), I am making representations, warranties, disclosures, covenants and agreements described below. If any disclosure, representation or warranty is false or misleading or if I breach any covenant or agreement made in this Agreement or any other form, agreement, application, questionnaire or release in connection with the Series, Producer may remove me from the Series; and Producer may make any explanation, announcement, on-air or otherwise, Producer or the network broadcasting the Series (the “Network”) may choose. I deem it to be in my best interest to enter into this Agreement and I am signing this Agreement voluntarily, knowingly and of my own free will.I UNDERSTAND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT RELATING TO MY PARTICIPATION IN THE SERIES, AND BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT I AM WAIVING LEGAL RIGHTS I MAY HAVE AGAINST PRODUCER, NETWORK, BROADCASTERS, SPONSORS OF THE SERIES AND OTHERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN THE EVENT THAT I EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT WITHIN LESS THAN FORTY-EIGHT HOURS AFTER FIRST BEING PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THIS AGREEMENT, THEN I SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THIS AGREEMENT FOR TWO DAYS AFTER THE DATE UPON WHICH I ACTUALLY EXECUTE IT. SUCH REVOCATION SHALL ONLY BE VALID IF MADE BY SENDING A NOTICE OF SUCH REVOCATION IN WRITING TO: “___________________”SUCH REVOCATION MUST BE POSTMARKED BY THE DAY WHICH IS TWO (2) DAYS AFTER THE DATE I ACTUALLYEXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT (THREE (3) DAYS IF THE SECOND DAY IS A SUNDAY OR A HOLIDAY) AND MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DAY WHICH IS FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DATE I ACTUALLY EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT. THEREAFTER, THE AGREEMENT BECOMES BINDING AND NOT REVOCABLE. SUCH REVOCATION SHALL ONLY BE VALID IF SENT BY CERTIFIED/REGISTERED MAIL OR AN OVERNIGHT MAIL SERVICE.Accordingly, Producer and I agree as follows: I. DISCLOSURES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS;A. If I am selected by Producer to be a Participant in the Series, I agree to take part as a Participant in connection with the production of the Series as and to the extent required by the Producer on such dates and at such locations as Producer shall designate in its sole discretion. I understand that interviews, meetings, psychological and/or medical evaluations, examinations and the like are or may be scheduled to take place in Los Angeles and possibly other locations throughout the United States (the “Location”) for casting purposes and/or during or after the production of the Series. I agree to participate in said evaluations and/or examinations and further understand and agree that any and all medical and/or psychological examiners may share with Producer the results of said examinations. I also agree that in connection with evaluating my participation in the Series, Producer may or may not conduct a background check on me. If I am selected to be a Participant in the Series, I, my actions, voice and sound effects during the pre-production period and on the Location during production will be filmed and recorded forthe Series on an up to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week basis, including without limitation by means of hidden cameras (however, such hidden cameras, if any, shall not be positioned to intentionally capture images of you urinating or defecating in the bathroom) and microphones and I hereby consent to such videotaping, filming or recording and knowingly and voluntarily waive any privacy rights I may have, regardless of whether I am aware that recording of my actions and conversations is taking place. I also agree to attend any meetings or interviews required by Producer in connection with my preparation for or participation in the Series. I further agree to be available and to participate as when and where Producer may require in connection with publicity, interviews and similar matters (e.g., to appear on news shows, talk shows and other programs, and to make other appearances as required by Producer) in connection with the Series as when and where designated by Producer in its sole discretion.****KNOWLEDGE OF SHOW******B. Knowledge of Series Nature and Content and Agreement to Comply with All Rules, Directions, and Instructions: I am familiar with the nature and concept of the Series. I understand that the Series is an unscripted and/or realitytelevision show, is not a game show, and will be produced for entertainment purposes. If I am a Participant in the Series, during the period of production, including any extensions scheduled at Producer’s sole and absolutediscretion, I will be expected to potentially go on date(s) with the other individuals, including but not limited to, the person ultimately selected as the Bachelorette if she selects me (or, alternatively, with the persons I select, if I am chosen as the Bachelorette) (hereinafter individually and collectively the “Dates”). Initially, the Bachelorette shall be introduced to approximately twenty-five (25) or more Bachelors, and she will elect to go on group dates with approximately fifteen (15) of these Participants (subject to modification by the Producer as to the number of Bachelorettes eliminated by the Bachelor at any stage of production). Group dates shall consist of approximately three (3) to seven (7) Bachelors and the Bachelorette. After the group date period, the Bachelorette shall go on non-chaperoned smaller group and/or one-on-one dates with selected Bachelors as set forth in The Series Guidelines. During the remainder of the Series, the Bachelorette will narrow the group of Bachelors down until ultimately only the final Bachelor selected by the Bachelorette remains. I understand that all Dates may be recorded (on tape, film or otherwise) and some Dates may be overnight or weekend trips to locations of Producer’s choice, in Producer’s solediscretion. I further understand and agree that the above format is subject to modification by Producer at any time, with or without notice to me. I further understand and acknowledge that Producer does not provide a chaperonefor the Dates.I agree that before, during and after the Dates, I will appear in the Series to be interviewed and make observations concerning my experiences on the Dates and thoughts related thereto. I understand that the Series is an unscripted and/or reality series that may involve the element of surprise. I have been informed and understand that I should be prepared for anything, at any time during the production of the Series and that the Series may involve “twists” and that that Producer may make misrepresentations intentionally or unintentionally concerning the Series and/or any element or aspect of the Series. Said misrepresentations may be made by, without limitation, Producer, Host, other Series Participants, Producer’s affiliates and/or other parties connected to the show. Being so informed, I voluntarily agree to participate in the Series. I have received, read and understood thedescription of the Series (“The Series Guidelines”), as provided by Producer, and I have voluntarily applied to participate in the Series. I agree to follow all of Producer’s rules, directions and instructions in all matters (including Participant selection and decisions regarding the creation and implementation of terms, conditions and rules governing the Series). I further acknowledge and agree that all Series rules are subject to change by Producer, in Producer’s sole discretion, at any time including, without limitation, while I am participating as a Participant on the Series and thatProducer’s decision(s) on all matters relating to the Series and my participation therein (including Participant selection, the activities/Dates in which the Participants partake, and the manner in which the Series is produced) shall be final and binding. In addition, if any activity on the Series is halted for any reason, I shall abide by Producer’s decision regarding the resumption of the activity. I understand that Producer reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to change, add to, delete from, modify or amend the terms, conditions and rules affecting the conduct of the Participants on the Series, the Series activities, and the elimination of Participants from the Series. ANY ACTUAL OR ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES OF MY FOLLOWING SUCH RULES, DIRECTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE MATTERS RELEASED AND INDEMNIFIED BY THIS AGREEMENT.E. Knowledge of Potential Embarrassment and Surprises: I acknowledge that interviews on or in connection with the Series may consist of another Participant and/or my statements about other Participants, personal relationships and, perhaps, the opinions and statements of my family and/orfriends and other people connected with the Series, and that some of these statements and/or statements by the host of the Series, Producer or Producer’s employees or agents or others may be considered surprising, humiliating, embarrassing, derogatory, defamatory, or otherwise offensive or injurious to me, the viewing audience, Producer or Producer’s employees or agents and/orother third parties. ANY SUCH STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS BY ME AND ANY INJURIESALLEGEDLY CAUSED THEREBY ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THE MATTERSRELEASED UNDER PARAGRAPH V BELOW AND INDEMNIFIED AGAINST UNDER PARAGRAPH VBELOW. FURTHER, ANY SUCH STATEMENT OR STATEMENTS BY ANOTHER PARTICIPANT (IFANY), THE VIEWING AUDIENCE, THE SERIES HOST, PRODUCER OR PRODUCER’S EMPLOYEESOR AGENTS AND/OR OTHER THIRD PARTY ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED WITHIN THEMATTERS RELEASED UNDER PARAGRAPH V BELOW. I also have been informed and Ifully understand that any “dating” advice from “dating experts” or advice from stylists as to make-up techniques, hairstyles, dress or the like is given to me on or in connection with the Series is for entertainment only. I am free to reject any such advice in whole or in part, and should I follow all or any part of such advice, I shall do so entirely at my own risk. ANY ACTUAL OR ALLEGED CONSEQUENCES OF MY FOLLOWING SUCH ADVICE SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN THEMATTERS RELEASED UNDER PARAGRAPH V AND INDEMNIFIED UNDER PARAGRAPH V BELOW. IFURTHER UNDERSTAND AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MAY EXPERIENCE ONE OR MORE SURPRISES(E.G., A SECRET OR OTHER UNKNOWN FACT MAY BE REVEALED TO ME) IN CONNECTIONWITH MY APPEARANCE ON THE SERIES, AND SUCH SURPRISE SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHINTHE MATTERS RELEASED UNDER PARAGRAPH V BELOW.*******Payment to Contestants*******F. Development Hold: I further agree that following the Initial Exclusivity Period, Producer shall have an option (which must be exercised, if at all, on or before the expiration of the Initial Exclusivity Period) to extend the Initial Exclusivity Period for a period of six (6) months following the expiration of the Initial Exclusivity Period (hereinafter the “First Development Hold Period”). If Producer exercises its option, it shall pay me the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). In exchange for said compensation, I agree to maintain my exclusivity obligations to the extent set forth in subparagraph E above during the First Development Hold Period and during the First Development Hold Period and/or, at Producer’s sole discretion, at any time during the Initial Exclusivity Period, if requested, to appear in, and render development services in connection with,pilot(s)/presentation(s) (or demos or run-throughs) for additional television projects or series featuring, starring, hosted or co-hosted by me and/or to make guest appearances on or otherwise participate in one or more of any Producer or company-related projects, programs or series. In the event Producer exercises its option for the First Development Hold Period, it shall have an option (which must be exercised if at all, on or before the expiration of the First Development Hold Period) to extend the First Development Hold Period for an additional period of six (6) months (commencing with the expiration of the First Development Hold) (hereinafter the “Second Development Hold Period”). If Producer exercises its option, it shall pay me the additional sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00). In exchange for said compensation, I agree to maintain my exclusivity obligations to the extent set forth in subparagraph E above during the Second Development Hold Period and during such period, if requested, to render the same services as set forth in subparagraph F above. Producer shall have the right to exercise its right for my below Series’ services at any time during the Initial Exclusivity Period and/or during the First and/or the Second Development Hold Periods (if this is done prior to Producer’s exercise of the First or Second Development Hold Periods it shall be done without necessity of payment for the First and/or Second Development Hold Periods).******EXTRA MONEY TO APPEAR ON OTHER SHOWS*********If Host on Syndicated or Cable Series:One (1) hour series: $10,000 per group of five (5) original broadcast episodes, if strip or per episode, if weekly. One-half (1/2) hour series: $7,500 per group of five (5) original broadcast episodes, if strip or per episode, if weekly. If Host on Network Series: The above host fees shall be increased by fifty percent (50%).If Co-Host on Syndicated or Cable Series:One (1) hour series: $7,500 per group of five (5) original broadcast episodes, if strip or per episode, if weekly. One-half (1/2) hour series: $5,000 per group of five (5) original broadcast episodes, if strip or per episode, if weekly.If Co-Host on Network Series: The above co-host fees shall be increased by fifty percent (50%). The above fees shall be prorated for groups of less than five (5). The above fees shall be for the first season of the Optioned Series. Myannual salary for each of the second and third Optioned Series’ seasons (subject to option exercise) shall be increased by five percent (5%) (cumulative). My annual salary for each of the fourth and fifth Optioned Series’ seasons (subject to option exercise) shall be increased by ten percent (10%) (cumulative).Here is Trisa Rehn's contract from ages ago (note the crazy font) : http://www.eejlaw.com/courses/entertainment_law_summer_06/Trista_Rehn_Bachelorette.pdfThe Official Rules: The Bachelor and The Bachelorette Casting EligibilityStandard Appearance Release: Page on go.comOr if you're interested in swapping wives: Page on abc.com

Writing competitions go back thousands of years. The centerpiece of the ancient Greeks’ annual Dionysia festival was a competition between playwrights at the Theatre of Dionysus dating back to before 600 BCE (and eventually actors were permitted on stage). Writers have been celebrated in festivals and competitions, and they have been remembered long after their deaths, from ancient times.The early days of “screenwriting” go back to the birth of film in the 1890s. Back then, they were called scenarios. Films were only a couple of minutes long and scenarios provided brief explanations — written by writers and filmmakers — primarily utilized for marketing and as explanations for audiences that weren’t used to experiencing entertainment in this then-revolutionary technology.As films became more narratively complex, they went from just one “scenario” to many. One of the first examples of the modern screenplay was from George Melies’ iconic 1902 film, A Trip to the Moon. The script had thirty-some lines of basic descriptions that provided action and locations.As cinematic narratives grew, so did the film industry. The first movie theater opened in 1905. By 1910, there were ten thousand movie theaters in the United States alone. Audiences were engrossed with cinema. And as with any budding industry, the more popular it became, the more people wanted to be involved.The Early YearsBudding storytellers began to write their own scenarios. As the film industry grew, the existing studios making movies at the time were bombarded by submissions.In 1913, Moving Picture World magazine reported that likely over twenty thousand fans had written their own movie “scenarios.”To engage the fans and to discover talent, studios began to offer cash prizes for the best scenarios. And thus, the screenwriting competition was born.Women in ScreenwritingFan magazines like Photoplay worked with studios to collect success stories and even began to publish advice articles on how to write for the cinema. Dozens of screenwriting schools and scenario advice books — like Louella Parsons’s How to Write for the Movies (1915).James Quirk, the editor of Photoplay magazine, realized that intrigued cinematic audiences not only wanted to watch movies, but they wanted to participate in them as well. And he also observed that women trying to break into the film industry as actresses were being taken advantage of — often in the most negative of ways.He later wrote that writing screenplays was a safe way to enter the film industry for women. It was challenging, creative, and crucial to the filmmaking process — and it offered possibilities for fame and fortune. Because of such articles, many early screenwriters of that time were women.Between 1915 and the early 1920s, Photoplay worked hard to convince women that their futures lay in screenwriting rather than the pursuit of being a Hollywood starlet in front of the camera. Quirk himself promoted the trade as the ideal pursuit for women of all aspirations and backgrounds.A housewife named Cordelia Ford earned a $250 cash prize in a screenwriting contest.Helen O’Keefe, who usually wrote after her children went to bed, paid off all of her debts after winning a cash prize from the American Film Company.Ida Damon, at that time working as a stenographer, won what was then an astronomical figure of ten thousand dollars from a screenwriting contest awarded by the Thanhouser Film Corporation.Elaine Sterne, winner of Vitagraph Studio’s International Scenario Contest, was later hired by Photoplay to write a monthly column entitled Writing for the Movies as a Professional.Many of the women that began to win these early screenwriting contests would later become the literary voices behind such iconic Hollywood filmmakers as Cecil B. DeMille, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino, and many others.By the late 1920s, Photoplay Magazine began to focus their attentions on the glitz and glamour of Hollywood — accompanied by creative advertising for products. The screenwriting articles began to disappear — as did the screenwriting contests.The Dark AgesNot much is written about screenwriting competitions in the couple of decades after the 1920s. There were certainly contests that continued on, but the majority of writing competitions seem to have shifted focus to literary fiction as the ripples of the Great Depression affected the film industry.Despite the economic hardship faced by nearly everyone in the country in the 1930’s, many millions of Americans still packed into theaters each week. Why? Escapism from the difficult times.Musicals became the highest-grossing genre of film, and helped to entertain the masses during the Great Depression. Stars such as Judy Garland, Mickey Rooney, Shirley Temple, and Fred Astaire became models of strength, courage, optimism, charisma, vulnerability, and triumph.Scenarios were no longer being written nor requested — long forgotten as the cinematic narrative built to feature-length movies. Original screenplays were less in demand, with the studios now instead opting for more musical compositions.1950sThe most notable screenwriting competition during this time was started by legendary movie pioneer Samuel Goldwyn, Sr.In 1955, to celebrate his 75th birthday, he started the Samuel Goldwyn Writing Awards at UCLA to encourage young stage, film, and television writers. Notable winners included Francis Ford Coppola, Eric Roth, Pamela Gray, Allison Anders, Colin Higgins, Carroll Ballad, Scott Rosenberg, and Jonathan Kellerman.The success history of the Samuel Goldwyn Writing Awards is impressive, with winners having later written more than 300 films, television series and made-for-TV movies — and have won a total of 27 Academy Awards with 101 nominations, 35 Golden Globe Awards with 189 nominations, and 87 Emmys with 488 nominations. Previous winners have also become popular authors who, collectively, have published over 60 books — many of which were New York Times bestsellers.However, this wasn’t an open competition. Only regularly enrolled undergraduate or graduate students at UCLA could partake — a stipulation that continues to this day.1970sDuring the 1960s and 1970s, cinema began to change. The counter-culture movement began to bleed into the film industry. The days of actor, director, and screenwriter studio contract deals for multiple pictures began to dissipate. Auteur filmmakers were all of the rage and studios began to take more risks to answer the call of the times in a Vietnam and Post-Vietnam era of cinematic storytelling.In 1979, Willard Rodgers — a graduate of the American Film Institute’s directors’ program — started the AFI Alumni Association Writers Workshop. At that time, Rodgers convinced the alumni board that talented starting writers could benefit from a process that begins with professional supervision of their scripts and ends with a reading by professional actors and an audience critique.This was a shift in screenwriting contests. Screenwriters would still submit their scripts to the program, but those that advanced would now benefit not from cash prizes, but through industry access and mentorship where they would work directly with industry professionals during and after the writing process.At the time, such a process was unheard of — especially the concept behind having the script read in an open forum by professional actors and later critiqued by industry insiders.“There had not been one word written on staging a screenplay before a live audience,” Rodgers said. “Live readings are valuable in giving writers feedback. Sometimes, you just don’t know what the problems are until an audience tells you.”“Seeing your writing acted out in front of an audience gives you a sense of its impact,” said Oliver Stone, who moderated one of the readings. “I think it would have helped (me) enormously if there’d been something like it when I was starting. I think I could still use it.”Novice screenwriters often first read about the program through a regular ad placed in the Writer’s Digest.According to an old L.A. Times article, Tom Homans was a 24-year-old college graduate counting engine parts in a Baltimore warehouse when he first saw the ad. He was an aspiring writer that had a story about a Little League baseball star. He sent in “what read like a 200-page essay” with the $50 application fee and six months later he had an agent at William Morris, an option at Lorimar, and was living in an apartment at the bottom of the hill below the Hollywood sign.A newspaper article about Homans’ success caught the eye of J.B. Mackey in Texas. Mackey and his wife traveled to Los Angeles that day with his story about a sociopathic child and his demonic dog. Mackey didn’t even have a full script. Instead, he submitted fifty pages of hand-written notes with dialogue. Neither of them had any clue about the format of a screenplay. But they were accepted into the workshop program nonetheless.“I look for that raw talent,” Rodgers said. “I can teach somebody the screenplay form in three hours. But it won’t help if they don’t have a story.”Major films like Cross Roads and River’s Edge emerged from workshop readings.The workshop itself was considered one of the best kept Hollywood secrets at the time — but not by design.“When you add in Xeroxing and some other things, it’s a tough way to make a living,” he said.The program costed the accepted writers money as well. According to the article, the most writers would spend to complete the workshop was $450. Rodgers estimated the actual cost for each “graduate” at $2,500.Hollywood’s talent agencies, independent production companies, and major studios contributed in making up the deficit.The entire workshop process took less than six months on average — primarily depending on the original condition of the screenplay and how hard and fast the screenwriter could write. Rodgers read the scripts first, then sent them out to volunteer professional writers. When the script was far enough along, it was scheduled for one of the two readings held each month.After the script was critiqued and a final draft was written, Rodgers copied the script and sent it out to his list of 39 companies and agencies that would read every workshop script submitted to them.If any of the submitted scripts were bought, or put into active development, the writers were obligated to return 5% of their earnings from those projects to the program.Rodgers died in 2010 and the AFI Alumni Association Writers Workshop is now just a distant memory.1980sIn 1985, the esteemed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences — those behind the annual Academy Awards —created what is still known as the most heralded screenwriting competition of them all. Gee Nicholl and Julian Blaustein were behind the development of a program that would aid new screenwriters — that program ultimately became the Don and Gee Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting, now known as the Academy Nicholl Fellowships.The competition was initially limited to California college students. During the first year in 1986, the 99 budding screenwriters that entered could submit a screenplay, a teleplay, a TV series episode, fiction, or a stageplay. The first Nicholl fellowships were awarded to Allison Anders, Dennis Clontz, and Jeff Eugenides.In 1987, the Academy Nicholl Fellowships expanded eligibility to include college students in nine states and to residents of Texas. Two years later, eligibility was expanded again to include any and all United States residents who had not sold or optioned a screenplay or teleplay.In 1989, Fellowship winner Radha Bharadwaj became the first fellow to have her Nicholl entry script released as a feature film —1991’s Closet Land.Very few contests beyond the aforementioned programs were running in the 1980s — at least at the national level. This was primarily due to the work that went into conducting such a contest. At the time, there was no internet. Submissions had to be mailed and copies had to be made. There was also no email correspondence, so mailings had to be sent out for marketing, submissions, and notifications.It wasn’t until the 1990s that the screenwriting contest began to see the surge that the secondary industry hadn’t seen since the early 1900s.The Boom of the 1990sBy the time the 1980s ended, the industry was thrown into chaos as a result of the 1988 WGA Strike. By the time the strike ended there was a sudden high demand for content, resulting in a plethora of original screenplays — spec scripts — that were sold for millions.Alan Gasmer, a William Morris agent during that time, started the trend of putting such scripts on the market for only a limited amount of time, with the auction block opening on Monday and closing at the end of that Friday. The result led to a competitive streak among the studios, leading to a ridiculous amount of big sales that we haven’t seen since. In 1990 alone, 14 scripts were sold for $1 million or more.Spec scripts like Milk Money ($1 million), Radio Flyer ($1.25 million), Medicine Man ($3 million), Basic Instinct ($3 million), The Long Kiss Goodnight ($4 million), and many more were purchased and eventually produced — to varying degrees of success. And even more were bought six to seven figures, only to never see the light of day.This boom sent waves across the country and world. Everyone wanted in.Los Angeles was no longer a destination for an immeasurable amount of hopeful actors — hopeful screenwriters began to take over as the ultimate Hollywood cliche.While the Nicholl Fellowship, Samuel Goldwyn Awards, and AFI Alumni Association Writers Workshop were still going strong, other contests began to slowly appear.The Disney/ABC Writing Program was created in 1990 in partnership with the Writers Guild of America and quickly became one of the most widely recognized and coveted industry writing programs — even to this day.The one-year program is the only program of its kind designed under terms approved by the WGA and has launched the careers of many successful writers. It offers writers the chance to receive a weekly writers salary for a year while working for and learning from the television industry’s best. It also provides access to executives, producers, and literary representatives through various meetings and events designed to facilitate relationships that can prove invaluable in developing a television writing career.The Chesterfield Writer’s Film Project followed in those footsteps, offering both television and feature writers a similar experience with a year long fellowship complete with access to and direction by industry insiders. It originated at Steven Spielberg’s Amblin Entertainment and was then sponsored by Paramount Pictures and overseen at the studio by Paramount Motion Picture Group Vice Chairman John Goldwyn and Senior Vice President of Production Dede Gardner.WFP alumni have written scripts for nearly every studio and major independent including Paramount Pictures, Disney, Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, DreamWorks, Sony Pictures, MGM, Imagine Entertainment and American Zoetrope and were represented by the Creative Artists Agency, International Creative Management, the William Morris Agency, and the United Talent Agency, among others.There was even a contest that was created by an international writers group based two thousand miles away from Los Angeles — in Madison, Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Screenwriters Forum accepted membership from all states and all countries, eventually growing to be three hundred strong in membership.Their screenwriting contest — and the organization itself — were known well enough in the industry to earn a mention in Dave Trottier’s The Screenwriters Bible.One of the more immersive contests came from Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute, in conjunction with the Sundance Film Festival which is clearly the premiere event of the year for filmmakers worldwide.The celebrated Sundance Screenwriters Lab proved to be an amazing launching pad into both indie cinema and Hollywood. This competition allowed screenwriters to network and meet some industry professionals, but also served as perhaps the best possible education they could receive in screenwriting and storytelling through film overall.The Screenwriters Lab is a five-day writer’s workshop that gives independent screenwriters the opportunity to work intensively on their feature film scripts with the support of established writers in an environment that encourages innovation and creative risk-taking. Through one-on-one story sessions with Creative Advisors, Fellows engage in an artistically rigorous process that offers them indispensable lessons in craft, as well as the means to do the deep exploration needed to fully realize their material.They only accept 12 projects each year. Some of Hollywood’s greatest talents have gone through the various Sundance Labs, including famous auteurs like Quentin Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson.Coming in second to the stature of the Academy Nicholl Fellowship that was created in the middle of the 1980s, the Austin Film Festival came onto the screenwriting contest scene in the middle of the next decade — 1994 to be exact. Independent cinema was booming and the AFF reached out to screenwriters to help hone their skills. AFF was originally called the Heart of Film Screenwriters Conference and functioned solely to launch the careers of screenwriters that were historically underrepresented within the film industry.Started in 1994 by Barbara Morgan and Marsha Milam, the AFF’s competition was roughly one of a handful of screenplay competitions in operation.When Barbara and Marsha started the Austin Screenwriters Conference, they gave advancing writers an opportunity to attend panels and network with industry panelists. Producers Barry Josephson and David Valdez were asked to attend and judge, which later resulted in them optioning the winning script Excess Baggage by Max Adams. The script would eventually be produced into a feature film starring Alicia Silverstone and Benicio del Toro.This ultimately put the the Austin Film Festival on the map for aspiring screenwriters and their number of entries continued to grow each subsequent year.“Since our inception, we really pride ourselves in maintaining our mission for championing writers. This year, we received over 9,400 submissions in our various categories,” AFF Screenplay Competition Director Matt Dy commented.AFF led the charge in offering screenwriters professional feedback as well through contest. Reader Comments — a brief paragraph of one reader’s “overall” notes — are provided to all entrants. Second Rounders and above receive further Reader Comments based on specific criteria. This then unique feature offered writers the chance to learn from industry readers, something that later contests would develop even further.They also were one of the first contests to send finalist scripts to major production companies — a feature that was implemented at a time when spec screenplays were in high demand.But despite the boom in spec script sales and the ripples of wide interest that followed, screenwriting contests were still relatively few and far between.Hollywood screenwriter Sean Hood (Conan the Barbarian, The Legend of Hercules, and Halloween: Resurrection) commented, “I went to film school between ’95 and ’98 and at that time, everyone talked about getting a short film into festivals, especially Sundance, but no one talked about screenplay contests.”But as technology grew and began to catch up with the industry, things changed.Moviebytes creator Fred Mensch commented on the impact that the internet made, “When MovieBytes went online in 1997, there were only about 35 or 40 contests worldwide, and most of them were pretty obscure. Almost immediately, though, we started getting 2 or 3 new submissions every week, and our database just took off. We were soon tracking hundreds of contests of all shapes and sizes.”The screenwriting contest industry was reborn, showcasing a widespread draw that hadn’t been seen since the early days of cinema.The internet made all of the difference. Contests could now be found with ease and were no longer regional. They were international. Screenwriters now had a platform to find places to submit their screenplays easily online, from anywhere in the world.Places like Moviebytes became a clearinghouse for screenwriting contest info, both good and bad. Screenwriters could review contests and communicate to others whether or not they were worth the submission.The technology grew as the 20th century made its into the 21st.Turn of the Century“The big shift in my awareness of screenplay contests came about when Withoutabox changed the way filmmakers submitted to festivals. It was suddenly clear that all these screenplay contests existed, and more and more sprung up with each passing year,” Sean Hood remembered.Withoutabox was website founded in January 2000 by David Straus, Joe Neulight and Charles Neulight and allowed independent filmmakers to self-distribute their films. The first product launched was the International Film Festival Submission system. It offered filmmakers a platform to submit their films to over 850 film festivals worldwide. This opened up the doors for screenwriting contests to utilize the platform as well.Contests could now request submissions via the web and manage incoming submissions electronically, instead of the traditional route of sending hard copies. Companies could market their contests, competitions, and festivals to over 400,000 active filmmakers and screenwriters already on the platform. They could also accept submission fees from them electronically, and automatically notify filmmakers for acceptance into their event.It offered a revolutionary approach to writing contests and would give birth to hundreds of additional screenwriting contests.Scriptapalooza, BlueCat, Final Draft’s Big Break, PAGE International Screenwriting Awards, Script Pipeline, Slamdance, and many others were born as the first decade of the 2000s brought forth the internet, social media, and overall technological advances that allowed screenwriters to find contests and submit with ease. BlueCat most-notably was founded by Gordy Hoffman, brother to the late actor Philip Seymour Hoffman.Cash prizes got bigger and more and more contests were offering access to the industry, as well as in-depth feedback from professional readers. Studios began to enter into the mix, with Universal, Warner Brothers, Fox, and Disney offering their own in search of undiscovered talent.Nearly every major film festival began to widely promote their own screenwriting competitions as well.This Past DecadeBetween the years of 2000 and 2008, the rate of screenwriting competitions began to increase, creating an oversatuated industry.If you visit MovieBytes.com today, you’ll find 553 records of contests to choose from.The promise of industry access became a game of which contests were true to their word, as far as what access they could offer.And then, in late 2007 and early 2008, the film industry underwent a drastic change after a new WGA strike was accompanied by one of the worst economic disasters since the Great Depression. It became more difficult for screenwriters to break through by going directly to production companies, studios, management companies, and agencies. If no major intellectual property (“IP”) was attached to any pitched project, it was next to impossible to get a meeting.But as the strike ended and the economy began to recover, the second decade of the 21st century begin to showcase a new resurgence of the screenwriting contest and its impact on the industry.Tracking Board’s Launch Pad leveraged its industry community and utilized it as a draw for screenwriters.Their Launch Pad competitions — pilots, features, and manuscripts — have helped dozens of writers elevate their professional careers, sell their scripts and even get staffed on television shows.ScreenCraft co-founders Cameron Cubbison and John Rhodes made the jump from Hollywood development and acquisitions jobs to launch a screenplay development firm specializing in screenwriting competitions by genre, aimed at discovering talented screenwriters and connecting them with producers, agents, and managers.ScreenCraft’s Screenwriting Competitions uniquely tailor the prize package and jury for each contest — eliminating potential genre bias — by specializing in screenplay competitions by genre. Their script coverage options and consulting packages offer some of the best and most detailed industry feedback that screenwriters can find outside of the studio system.Then came Coverfly.Coverfly is a free network connecting emerging screenwriters with industry professionals.It is also the industry’s largest database of screenwriting competition entries, connecting the industry’s most highly-regarded competitions into a single database for industry insiders to search and discover emerging talent. Users can sync their Nicholl and Black List accounts, as well as enter top competitions all in one place – and much more.As you can see, screenwriting competitions have come a long way.The key is to focus less on the prize money and more on the connections the contests, competitions, and fellowships have with the Film/TV industry.Hollywood uses the bigger contests as filtration systems to discover new talented writers and buzz-worthy scripts. It’s not the end all be all answer for screenwriters, but it’s one way to break through, get representation, and network. And they are a great way for screenwriters to test the waters.Please follow The Tao of Screenwriting for more fun Movie/TV discussions, as well as screenwriting and film industry insights. Ask me questions. Come visit this “dojo” for screenwriting, movie, television, film/TV industry insights, inspiration, writing exercises & best practices, tips, advice, and industry hacks. I’m here to help, entertain, share, and inspire. This answer was adapted from an article I wrote on The Script Lab. Check them out!