Tue, 2021-Sep-21 00:00 (BST)
I am not a coverage type of writer. That comes from a mixture of arrogance and knowledge that I don't write normal stories. Many people say coverage is a learning tool. Others say that it is a stage, something they do before sending their work out. People use coverage services for various reasons.
Is there a point (or was there for for you) when you no longer saw the need for coverage?
When I realized it was just practice and wouldn't count for anything... and was just too darned expensive. Being poor really concentrates the decision-making to the highest priority items. So, I haven't had 'coverage' for about a decade; however, if we're talking 'notes', I gave up on them a bit later, though I had one cheapo version in 2018. Nothing since. I haven't taken advantage enough of free script exchanges with fellow writers (ie. notes, not coverage) for a long time. I think there's great merit there, but you have to be sure it's with somebody who's going to put out as much as you do. One time, I did a 6-page notes service for somebody (6 hours, including reading the script) and all I got from him was a half-screen of an email. Uhh... But if you can find somebody trustworthy, I think you can do very well there. Maybe from some writer's group or something. But I don't think you need to pay for anything, unless you think it'll be a useful propaganda piece on your on-line resume/website/here on ScriptRevolution... or of course if you have money to burn.
As for the first part of my remark, what I mean by 'practice' and doesn't count, is that some coverage may help you get a submission through to a producer (I know some who ask for it up front) but that they're going to do their own anyway. So if they're going to, I'd just trust your own writing ability so far as possible, then be very patient when you get a submission to somebody, knowing that they're going to be tearing it apart anyway - whether or not it came with coverage.
PS. Edit to add this: I can't say that my approach would work for anybody else, but my method is one reason why I have so much stuff. I was pounding out a script a month, when I was really flying. But if I were paying (and waiting on coverage, and notes, and then acting on them ie. editing), I'd probably only have half or less output that I have. Now this may have been a better thing, but I've come to trust my own writing, and follow-up editing, and annual polishing, to bring my stuff to the standard it's at. Am I wrong? Well, no sales yet, but there's one thing that tells me I may on at least a reasonable track: That I have had multiple reads from some big producers. Not one of them would have given me a second chance if I didn't at least know how to format stuff properly. In fact, I refer to them as 'fans', even if they haven't optioned stuff. Most of all, they're great contacts for the day I get a deal and am looking for co-producers, financiers, etc. Everybody has to have their own path in this journey. This was/is mine, even if a lot of it was based on my simply not having much money to do the contest/coverage/notes/on-line pitches thing. I wish I had, but you gotta work with what you have. G'luck to all!
I entered a few competitions when I first started (three all up I think) and only if they gave notes. I soon noticed that the notes contradicted each other "love the dialogue" vs "dialogue is boring and tired". So that killed credibility for me. I then applied a friends stop smoking tactic to writing. As soon as he decided to stop smoking, referred to himself as a non-smoker. He made that leap immediately. He wasn't "quitting". He was a non-smoker. There must be a time when us a writers say "I am a writer" I do not need help.
For me, there is also no qualification for these people. Even when they say they were a "development executive", that is basically the bottom of the totem pole. I have heard people on podcasts say "I went to writing as I didn't want to be stuck as some low paid development executive all my life".
Notes from other writers I think can be useful. But I love find people I think would watch the movie and get their feedback. My niece read the first 20 pages of a horror I was working on (I dropped it, I am not really a horror guy) her feedback was "it f**ks with your head", the honest of a 17 year old.
I been told a script got boring in the middle - I love that. Boring I can fix.
Emotion is what we are trying to manipulate in our audience. So feedback on emotion is gold.
As Steve points out, this stuff can be expensive and if it doesn't shift the need for you, is it value?
It's the rewriting trap. Too easy to fall for it. Hell, I still fall for it at times. I'll think, oh no, everything has to be rewritten from scratch, then a moment later I'll realize, oh, no I just need to change one word.
Online, people tend to use "coverage" and "feedback" interchangeably. Both are optional. Either can help, or not help at all. You could pay for either one, or not. Again, it's optional. For anyone first starting to explore their craft, it's all bloody confusing. It doesn't help when script readers blatantly lie and give false information on purpose because they just don't like the story. They're paid per word count. They're not paid to be anyone's best friend .
When does a writer get to a point when they realize rewriting is unnecessary? I don't think there's one right answer for everyone. Whenever it happens. Today, tomorrow, ten years from now, whenever.
Hi Lily,
For rewriting is a constant. I sold a film a few years back that has stalled in endless funding issues (I wouldn't be a producer). I was reading the script again to see if there is anything I think I could improve to help these people. I suddenly realised one of the characters is very religious. Six years after I finished it I realised something that has been sitting right in front of me.
I see "paid" services as a thing people are convinced to rely on. When in my opinion, a writer should develop a belief in themselves. I see posts on reddit "I got an 8 on my blacklist coverage, what are the next steps?". Convincing a paid service (no matter what it is called - notes, coverage, analysis ....) isn't an indication of a writers ability to write. What happens if someone picks up a job in a writer's room based on one of these scripts? Who are they hiring? The writer or the coverage service? Some could argue that they are hiring a combination of the two.
The other thing that makes me suspicious of these services is the fanatical following they have by some people. This cult like belief makes me suspicious that they are selling hope not education. When I have said something like "I find these services lacking in consistency based on what I have seen and heard". I have been met with "you don't use them because you a scared you wont measure up". I don't know what to say to that, so I don't respond.
I don't know what the answer is. I was thinking of creating a site where people could post reviews on their reviews. So the good honest ones would rise to the top. But I am far less charitable that CJ (our host and benefactor). It seemed like more work than I was willing to undertake.
Heh. I think we've reached the same conclusions. I agree, in my research, vast majority of these paid sites are just a money grab and don't help writers to develop. At the same time, if someone firmly believes a paid site is helping them, there's not a whole lot that you can do. Either they learn, or they don't.
If I had the money to waste on nothing, it would be interesting to see what happens after sending. say, the first ten pages of a successful produced movie under a different title and screenwriter's name, to all of these paid sites, regardless of cost. I wouldn't be surprised to read a lot of "no that's the wrong format" or "producers don't want to read that," etc, etc, with the assumption this is from and unknown amateur writer.
Well this is surely an interesting topic, complex, and multi-faceted. Coverage/feedback/notes are expensive and can become addictive. I'm reminded of the time I was gambling in Atlantic City and there was a line in front of the ATM machine I needed to use, so when I joined the line the old man in front of me turned to me and said, "Welcome to the line of shame." I was down about fifty bucks, but he was down about 8 grand. As we waited in line he said the worst thing about losing a pile like he'd just lost--it wasn't the first time, he said--is "It makes you feel like a moron." So I try not to be a moron with my buys.
In the last year I've gravitated toward the development execs and producers who provide coverage via Stage 32. (There's a competitor service I'm less familiar with called Roadmap Writers, I believe.) The execs take a commercial perspective in their feedback, something that I still really need, while seeming to know the nuts and bolts of screenwriting well too. The bonus is that if they like the script enough they'll share it with their bosses. (This has happened to me three times this year.) And if the exec rates you, as well as your script, a "recommend" then Stage 32 will circulate your script's logline to industry execs in an email blast. (This has happened to me once this year, resulting in two script requests from A-list outfits.) More generally, I do often find a way to use professional feedback to strengthen my scripts, and I think script quality is kind of important if I'm ever going to manage to sell something or get hired to write something.
Great news Eric, well done.
Only coverage I've ever had on my scripts were done by a sales agent to help solidify the pitch to investors. Basically provide a third-party endorsement of the script's potential. This happened twice and both times the scripts got a strong-recommend from a top of the line reader who'd spent most of their career at New Line advising the studio heads.
Even at this level, the coverage was taken with a pinch of salt rather than gospel. Great they like the script. They have suggestions? Okay. That suggestion's good. That suggestion's shit. That suggestion's alright.
I've never gotten it on my specs but I do know having some strong endorsements would be powerful and make them more competitive. I wouldn't use it as feedback really. Just an opinion.
This has been a thought-provoking thread! Many different perspectives, but all very relatable. I have mixed feelings about coverage/feedback/notes. After I wrote my first script, I sought out paid feedback more than I do now simply because I didn't have anyone else to guide me. I also gravitate to contests with free feedback. It's been a mixed bag, but even with the less-than-helpful feedback, I can usually find a nugget that makes sense.
If you're going to pay for feedback, I think Eric has the right idea in that he's using execs and producers who are not anonymous and have some credibility. It's a lot easier to blow off a writer, be hateful or fill the pages with useless verbose fluff when they don't know your identity. Eric's small wins keep hope alive for people like me. Keep us posted, Eric; you're clearly not a moron! :)
Notes from other writers are golden. I've had two people from this platform give me several pages of notes. Not only was it super generous of them, but some of the best script-specific advice has come from them. (I'd love to meet them!) One suggested I make some of the characters in my comedy a little older. I thought the reasoning was sound--done! Another pointed out that a scene in my drama left some questions pertaining to the timeline--and he was so right! (I had changed another scene without changing that one, but it still made perfect sense to me since I know the characters' backstories.) I was grateful he pointed it out. So many other examples. These writers weren't anonymous, yet they had no problem keeping it real. I don't need things to be sugarcoated. While some suggestions landed, others didn't. In the end, it's my vision/my story.
When does a writer get to a point when they realize rewriting is unnecessary? My answer is, when it sells--until the buyer wants changes made, of course. I can always find something to tweak, and as long as I still enjoy working on the script, why not? I always joke that some of these characters have become imaginary friends!
Now I'm inspired to start a fan club called "Eric is not a moron" and have a watch party for when Eric hits the red carpet. Credit: Andrea.
Ha, ha! That poor guy, he really had the addiction bad. I believe it was a Tuesday, and he'd told me he'd called in sick on Monday for work to try to get even but only dug himself a deeper hole, and he'd called in sick that day too. He was really dreading telling his wife ....
Lily: Ha! Count me in! :) I think he's going places!
Eric: Yikes! Wow... addiction is terribly sad.
I haven't used the Exe path. But those are people I can see as a good source. They know people, if we were considered "money in the bank", they could ring people. I mean they would be doing their friends a favour, but I am willing to take that collateral benefit.
I think I bristle at people that give feedback like a teacher grading a math examine. You either fitted into their formula or you didn't. The feedback Andrea got sounds great. "Make characters older" you will never find in a book or beat sheet. That is something only (I think) I writer would suggest. I have said this here and possibly in this thread "I love notes that have an emotion in it". If some says "its boring in the middle" I am happy. I can fix boring. It a note starts with "I feel..." it is a good note. I am interested in moving people emotions, not getting an A+ when marked against some standard.
I don't know the answer to the predatory nature of so many services, or even if it is our problem to fix. I think many people would find joy in the art and process of writing. But this is taken from them because they are given expectation of Hollywood success or film sales. Then when this doesn't happen they experience failure not joy and leave. Plus the millions (I could be overstating the number) of people sending out work based on these false expectations means no one takes unsolicited work. I can walk into any antique shop and tell them I have stuff to sell to them. We will have a talk and they may be interested. This is because people selling stuff to them is rare and they are interested. If every morning there was a queue of people waiting for them to open and every person held a chair to sell to them, they would chance them away. We are those chair holding people.
I bristle at people who give feedback as if I signed up for boot camp. Barking orders and attacking. Not appreciated.
It seems to me, everyone's different. Me? I do my best work in isolation. That's just how I roll. If I had a large group of people constantly giving me conflicting feedback, I'd never finish anything. That might be the answer to this seemingly philosophical question. You know when to stop when you finish the script.
I also bristle at formulaic writing and the idea of being penalized for not meeting some arguably subjective beats at the "right" times. Honestly, as an independent thinker, I'd like to strangle "the Cat." To me, it seems convoluted to actively steer your writing to meet these beats--15 of them, no less. Sorry, that's not how I write. It seems exhausting and would completely suck the joy out of writing. I have a general awareness of the basic three act structure, and my stories tend to naturally flow that way. That said, I'm mindful to "hook the reader early" (page 10? page 8?), since readers tend to have miniscule attention spans.
I am with you, Andrea. I wish nothing but curiosity to that cat.
Get any feedback whatsoever is like when you stop asking your parents for advice. There is a point when you realise you can trust your own knowledge and experience. I always refer to "coverage" as 'the cats journey' or 'save the hero', just to annoy people. If I follow a recipe I expect to get the same meal as the cookbook describes. Why do some writers think that following a recipe will make they a unique voice. I have put forward the theory that is makes a writer feel safe. At the end they have something that looks familiar, therefore they have done a good job.
We are obviously cut from the same cloth, us non-conformist. But hey I would rather die being unpredictable. My best friend has promised this will be on my gravestone (in many decades I hope), "what do I have to do to get away from you people". I am hope to cause some inappropriate laughter. Again unpredictable.
For years now, the simple fact of 'cost' has kept me from partaking of coverage and notes services, but I have a few suggestions to make:
I find it annoying when these self-professed gurus compare our spec scripts to popular finished films. This is worse than comparing apples to oranges. At the very least, the comparison should be made only between our spec scripts and the SCRIPT of that film. This would enable us to grasp the criticism without being confused by all of the music, director and acting quirks, marketing, etc. that make a movie a movie.
In fact, I'd prefer our scripts to be compared to other spec (unproduced) scripts to make the point, of how to do this or that, so this led me to another idea:
In terms of criticism with or without other produced screenplays, wouldn't it be refreshing to come across a guru who, along with his or her rates and experience (generally uncredited, of course) also presents a sample of their own, unproduced work. You know, "show don't tell"? This might far better demonstrate the guru's criticisms they lob at their paying customers.
You know what would happen: 'Hey, guru, you told me to do it one way, but your own script has it the way I did it, too!'
But as I said, it's been years since I've even engaged anybody to give notes or cover my stuff. Maybe it's improved a lot since then, and maybe there are lots of practising screenwriting gurus who dare to show their own stuff, already. Anybody?
I was just looking at 'screenplay consulting' versus 'film criticism'. In Literature class, or history, or creative writing, I think one is more apt to 'read' material vs. set up a big screen at the front of the class. The day somebody can actually visualize a script from scratch, in a movie form, perhaps through some yet-to-come technology, is the day that I think it's right to compare one of our spec scripts to a finished film. Even my worst story, if directed by Christopher Nolan, with a $100 million budget, acted by (name favorite actors/actresses), and laden down with Oscar-winning talent in the crew, would probably come out pretty okay. What separates the 'okay' from the 'great' must surely be the story underneath, no matter what software it was written in, no matter the pedigree of the writer, no matter it being the 1st or 50th script they've written. What I'm saying is that I don't think we're quite there yet, when it comes to defining the best way to consult on screenplays, no matter how often McKee prattles on about Casablanca. (Great movie, of course, so maybe we should call them 'movie consultants')
Say, I wonder if there's an equivalent booming-business in the architectural world, for 'consulting on blueprints'?
In my experience, working across multiple sectors, there's the same sort of consultant in every industry. It's to the point now where the title of consultant pretty much suggests someone with zero success, a high hourly rate, and a lot of poorly formed opinions.
That all said, I can accept that some people are better at analysing things than they are executing things.
> in the future on another planet
Such an 'updating' can work. At least I think so. I wasn't impressed with the Coop's High Noon, but I quite liked the remake/Sean Connery vehicle, Outland. But yeah, maybe the assessment of Outland by someone of a tender age not familiar with its Oscar-winning heritage would very well plunder it with criticism.
One of my favourite beats ever is in Clouds of Sils Maria where, after the aging actress Maria Enders picks apart the story in a block buster space opera, her assistant Valentine quips that she'd probably love it if it were set on a farm. It's funny and devastating because it's so true.
There's a rumour that someone took a legendary old film script, switched the names and locations, submitted it to the Black List and it got a damning score, but I'm not sure how true it is. The fact I'm willing to believe it though speaks volumes.
I got coverage on my very first feature script that I ever finished while still in college. It scored really well (8/10), but the notes they had were really weird. They said (paraphrasing as this was years ago), "I find it hard to believe that a paralegal meets with clients..." ummm...I did that for nearly a decade as a paralegal. Looking back at the script, there are so many worse things about it.
I got coverage another time that was required for another school project, but I don't much remember it. Whenever I'm tempted to spend more money on coverage, I remind myself how much $$$$$$$$$ I spent on my MFA for Scriptwriting. You would think that should be sufficient (with practice of course). It gets easier with each script.
So now I just have my husband (a HUGE movie buff) read as I go. If he's confused about something, I'll clarify. Currently, I'm working on a rewrite contract for an actor and so far, I'm having him read along and it's a lot of the same notes as my husband. I think you get into your own groove...just don't get complacent, right? Beyond, knowing your story, sticking to good plot points and character development...I think confidence is key.
Happy Writing y'all!
Good to see ya again Cannon!
Cannon, I deal often with my solicitor. 5/10 times I met with Jack is paralegal. I just have to sign something etc.
I am the first to say I am arrogant. But I can't see how someone can know what I am trying to say better than me. I know my craft. I know the tools I need. (arrogance warning), I find it hard to pay people that have probably less craft than I do.
Thanks, Derek! You too!!!
Craig, I'm just glad that I'm not alone in my snubbing of the coverage! Thank you for bringing this topic up. I think maybe it can be arrogance, but it's also an ability to read the room so to speak. ie When submitting to an industry pro and they reply with "Not for me, but great writing" or the like, or your samples get you hired, you place in contests...whatever it may be. So the arrogance may not be arrogance, just warranted sureness.
So this topic I think is relevant to something that has been on my mind...the rewrite. Everyone always talks about their vomit draft and how they spend weeks rewriting and they never send out their first draft. Does anyone else here tend to not do that? My script Crazy Athol was written in 30 days and placed in 2 contests and is almost fully cast. Draft 1. Maybe in a sense I'm doing a rewrite as I go, in each act without realizing it, but I'm not doing it the way all the other blogs/advice say to do!
Ready, set, gooooo.
Hi Cannon, you raise a good point and an interesting topic.
Technically, everyone submits first drafts regardless of how many times that draft has been rewritten. Nothing becomes a second draft until it's been optioned. I think there many online who shamelessly misuse the term draft. First draft simply means it hasn't been optioned yet.
On that note, there does appear to be many, and I've seen the evidence myself, saying, for the next draft consider this change, add, cut, whatever, and what they seem to really say is, oh! You have money to spend? Keep submitting and send us your money. I mean, what makes these readers assume there's going to be another draft? In other words, it's a trap.
I've spent a fair amount of time in online groups for writers/novelists/poets/short story writers, and I've seen the same rewriting trap many times. In my experience, rewriting the same story endlessly to please absolutely everyone is pointless. I'm reminded of one of my fav internet memes: I've long since learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is a piece of cake.
Yesss! That meme is true in all things in life!
Good point about the drafts. I don't know if this is true for everyone else, but when I write I write without feeling married to my words. That way when I'm asked for a change it doesn't hurt so bad. Also, I like to keep in mind the other creatives involved in the project - let them have some creative liberties.
And back to what you said about endlessly rewriting the same story, I think that's why I don't revisit my drafts unless necessary because that is a rabbit hole I don't prefer to travel down.
deleted
I buy coverage, but I take any advice/criticism with a pinch of salt. If there is something in the notes that makes me think "Yeah, I could do that actually..." then I might do it. But most of the time, I'm not looking for someone to tell me how they would have done it better/differently. I just want to know if I'm hitting the notes I want to hit. I got some coverage on a script once, and if my goal was to improve the script, there wasn't a single word in there that would help me do that. However, it wasn't useless feedback because I got the note that I wanted - that one character was stealing every scene she was in. Great. Because that's what I wanted that character to do. If they'd not mentioned the character once, then I'd have been looking at how to revise it.
Truth be told, I'm not convinced a lot of these paid-for coverage readers know how to properly analyse a piece of writing. I think they bring far too much of their own subjectivity to the table. I understand that it's very difficult to completely divorce yourself from your own subjective preferences, but they're not being asked to re-imagine a script to their own ideal. They're being asked to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of what's in front of them based on what the writer was trying to accomplish.
Mostly, I'm just not going to spend time trying to redraft a script to a single person's subjective view on what would be great. If I'm hitting the notes I want to hit, then that's good enough for me. If I'm not, then that's something that I need to look at and work out for myself. I don't think coverage is going to help me figure out why.
Pages