What's your feeling on contests and coverage?

CJ.  Could you expound on Incentives?  

Hi Rabbit. Writing a book (novel) from your 100-page script to a 500+ page book is no easy task! I'd know... I have done it - in vain! Reason being just like in the movie industry we write scripts that are commercially in demand... same for books. I wrote and posted my book on Amazon Kindle 9 months ago and to date, I have sold zero copies. May I advise that before you consider the teadiest task of rewriting your script to book, that you connect with publishing houses and send them your script for their read and opinion as to whether it's a commercially viable book or not - they after all would know best, right?   

Ya, self-pub (book, series) would need a ton of DIY marketing for chance to stand out any in crowd. Maybe not a project I plan to undertake in next year/three but somethin' else on my creative-to-do-sometime list that's growin' too large to probably finish my one lifetime (!).   

Anthony Rodriguez, it's something that varies a lot. As mentioned, SAG tiers are a big one. When you put a film into a production in the US, you pretty much have to go through SAG to secure valuable, bankable talent. Your budget dictates a tier that you fall into such as Low Budget, Ultra Low Budget, etc. Those tiers dictate certain things such as what base rate you have to pay talent. The lower the tier, the cheaper it is to make the film. Diversity incentives mean that you can operate within a lower tier with an extended budget (50% more I think) so there can be a big financial incentive to cast people of colour, elderly, non-male, disabled, etc.

Tax incentives can operate in a similar way. With tax incentives, a region (usually a state or a city) gives the production back a percentage of their costs as a way to attract the production into their area. These can sometimes have diversity requirements within them.

This is before getting into the topic of festivals and various other promotional avenues that want to see more diversity. That's obviously another significant business consideration.

So, I wanted to circle back to this post and express some frustration with coverage and actual Industry Pro feedback.  To be upfront, of three scripts I have spent considerable time and effort on rewriting based upon actionable coverage and pro feedback, it has been quite helpful.  However, on a recent project where I paid for feedback from the same person on two occasions, I took to heart many of the points they made about structure and story.  I worked the script over in a major way, moved scenes around, added and cut scenes, etc.  I understood what the reader was getting at and agreed it could improve.  Did all that and sent it to a Pro via Stage32 for a First Ten read.

Now, I have done this many, many times and I am careful "who" I choose to have read, usually with the Pro reading past the first 10 and commenting on the whole script.  It's been very useful and even got me a recommend as a writer.  HOWEVER, on this last script, the Pro came back and absolutely hated the story.  She said it was a confusing mess, etc. I have never had this happen and was dumbfounded.   I then realized what I had felt all along: the version I had before the coverage was a BETTER version.  So, I went back to that one, tweaked a few things, and said to myself, I will never use that particular coverage service again. 

I suppose the moral to the story is that coverage is subjective and don't take the coverage as gospel.  If it feels off, it usually is just that.

Perhaps I am over analysing the coverage industry. But if you keep implementing their changes, does it stop being your document amd become theirs. Sure you are using your style, skill and time. But it is their structure, story and scenes.

Just a thought.

No, I don't think so. It contains your characters, dialogue, description and story. If coverage readers see flaws in their execution, they're going to point it out. That's their job. They will probably give you reasons why something doesn't work or doesn't work well: implausibility, plot holes, story linearity, shallow stereotypes--whatever the problems may be. It's really not as subjective as people may think. That is not to say that there isn't a range of skill among readers. Some are better than others, but in my experience, they all have a basic understanding of story and meet a basic standard of competence.

To wit, readers usually add a grid to the end of the critique with various criteria listed. Those criteria can be used to evaluate any story, and because they apply, not willy nilly, but across the board they're more objective than subjective. Are there exceptions here and there? Yes. Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction defies linearity. But we're not Quentin Tarantino.

Take care not to protect yourself and your work too fiercely. Critiques are an excellent way to learn and to just plain see what you didn't see before. Even the best among us can use another pair of eyes. In the end, you can reevaluate and accept or reject suggestions. Because it's your work and always will be.

I there is my problem (only mine. not stating this as a universal truth), art is 1000% subjective in my mind. There are group agreement on many things as we have a shared existence in many ways. But to apply a grid and some engineering standard to a story (just my opinion remember) removes possibility of credibility in my eyes.

I maintain the best feedback I got from a director was "it's boring in the middle". The worst was from an editor I was trialling, "It would be expected to have a B story start on page 11". Boring I can work with. 

I think art is a bit more collaborative than is commonly realized. There's a reason why George Harrison and Ringo Starr owned 5% each of Lennon/McCartney songs. I'll bet even Leonardo da Vinci had a good sounding board person in his studio. But to decide what to absorb and what to discard of the feedback from others is an art in itself.

I'll just drop in here briefly with my old 'Blacklist' reader story.  I've never had a script on the site - simply too much $ - but I've always marveled at how its proprietor has worked capitalist free-enterprise magic (good!) into millions of dollars from goggle-eyed screenwriters (not so good). 

But since I was and remain a big LinkedIn fan, a couple of years ago I did a search for "Blacklist" and "reader", and found 30+ of them!  I guess if you're a reader on the Blacklist you're a big-shot in the field and want everybody to know it! 

Anyway, I think I disturbed a lot of people when I pointed out one profile in particular in which she declared her skill via "read 3-5 scripts per day".  And this is including comments and filling out their secret algorithmic matrix?  Ha. 

(Note: Within weeks, it seemed, many of the 30+ profiles were removed or edited.  I guess word got out.)

Edited to add:
PS. Okay, I better elaborate my own subjectivity here.  I lost trust in notes and especially the pretend coverage business in my early days of writing - though as mentioned the lack of available funds has also been a major factor in my lack of participation.  Same thing for contests.  But as to this dynamite reader of 3-5 scripts per day, I just can't believe that's doing justice to the writer's work.  For my stuff?  The only way to appreciate it would be TWO reads of the same script, over the course of the day - to truly grasp it - plus the detailed notes/matrix.  Otherwise, I know they're just doing skim reads, and not at all serving their producer bosses very well.

When I received coverage from Stage32, there was a lot I didn't agree with. Tons. But, in all fairness, I was on a deadline, and knowingly sent a less than stellar script. It wasn't ready and I knew it. I figured, at worst, do the opposite of whatever the reader says. No, I don't recommend submitting a mess, this is just how it worked out for me. Anyway, the coverage had a lot of useful info. The grid that's used isn't restrictive, more like placeholders. Insert whatever info here.

On the other side of things, it can be hard to be a screenwriter and maintain your vision. Someone sees something else and you may think, oh, okay, I'll write it this way. Holding on to your confidence and saying to yourself no that's not my vision, I find, is half the battle. Negative, or at least unpleasant feedback, can be gut-wrenching, but it can be useful if you can hold on to the belief in your story. Reading is subjective, but that doesn't mean that you, as the writer, is under obligation to be subjective. I know, I'm making all of this sound easy. It's not easy but what's next to impossible is being objective about a script that I've been staring at for too long.

I have two secrets (for me, your mileage may vary) that I discovered by chance. One is that in most cases when a set of notes displeases me I will inevitably chance to re-read them months later as I'm perhaps straightening out my computer files, and then they displease me far less than they had originally, and I agree with more of what was written. I guess my defenses are down by then? Or I've learned more about screenwriting in the meantime?

The second secret, similarly, is that whenever I have made a major breakthrough on one of my own scripts it is at the point where I have already turned my attention to another project because I think the script is finished and I haven't worked on that script for six months (on average). That is when my eureka moments happen. Wish it were otherwise, but I'll take it.

Steve Garry - I second what you say... no way a reader can do 3-5 feature readers with notes in one day! I'm a competition reader/judge with feedback report, and I do one feature plus one  60 min T.V pilot a day ~ in this I can offer my best service to the writer, as opposed to cashing the money... paid per read/notes. You'd think the competition company would pick this up and question the reader!?    

Eric, Robert Frost advised putting your poems in drawer for five years. Time and mental space make for a much better look at your own work. I just had a similar experience a couple weeks ago. I'm so glad I let the coverage simmer for a while.

Sorry! Hit the save button twice!

Steve Garry and Berry, I can't imagine how anyone could read and develop comments on screenplays at the rate of even two a day. When, now and then, I read for someone, I usually have to read it twice. All in all I need two days for one script.

I'm not a pro reader. I am an avid reader and tend to read fast. As a non-pro reader, it would take me at least a month to read and write notes for a full script. One thing I have noticed, and this is just my observation, again as non-pro, the more cohesive the script, the faster I read. Conversely, with pro readers, I find the less time they spend on reading and writing notes, the higher chance of two things, one, the script isn't clear enough or two, the reader isn't that good. Good being subjective of course. I doubt this could be considered a hard and fast rule, just my observation.

My own rules of thumb.

Never pay for coverage unless you know who is actually doing the coverage along with their credentials (i.e., things like contest coverage are a waste of money, IMO).

Avoid coverage factories (you know who they are) and coverage schemes. Something like the  Blacklist fits both of these no-nos - you don't know who your reader is and you are on a platform that incentives you to buy more coverage.

Be weary of formula gurus - e.g., if get a comment that says your inciting incident didn't happen on page 10 - run away! They are most likely only looking at your story through the lens of a preferred formula.

Recognize that even when you get a qualified person to read and comment on your script - there are places where they are going to be wrong. Challenge their opinions just as you would your own.

Firstly, EVERYTHING is subjective. You have to burn that into your mind when receiving any form of feedback and you have to be prepared to jump in and defend the story, concept, tone, vision, whatever.

The whole point of coverage is that you're getting a known professional's view of your script as context is everything. There needs to be a sound reason behind why you're going to someone. Their skills need to align with your goals.

Firstly, EVERYTHING is subjective. 

Well, with the exception of typos:)

As per David, aka- Eldave1. I could not agree more... Get COVERAGE from an accredited professional person. FEEDBACK is not coverage, and is commonly requested (pay an extra +/- $30) when you enter your script to a competition company. You will receive a 2-page note on your script, which will give a reason why the reader gave you a score of 1 to characters and or a 5 to structure. If you going to pay $70 to enter your script, you might as well pay the extra $30 to get feedback as to why your scorecard is so scored? It's best to know why you got a 1 than not know. You may even agree (see/realise) to what the reader wrote? A reader would not give you a 1 or a 2 If there was not something wrong! Most 2-page feedback reports give brief notes on concept - storyline - structure - plot - character - dialogue - marketability - production value - etc. I for one use my a lotted 2 pages to give a short comment to what I scored a 4 or 5, and will give a more in-depth report on what I scored a 1 or 2. And yes, a competition reader/feedback person, as myself, is no professional coverage script consultant! We've just been around the block many times... we know what works and what doesn't. 

Most competitions I know of don't use the judges for feedback so there's no correlation. All the feedback entries are farmed out to a third-party system that offers it at a wholesale rate. It just gives competition organisers another avenue to make profit. It's an up-sell.

As for typos. I'd say views on their importance, at a more minor level, are subjective. At least based on my experience.

As for typos. I'd say views on their importance, at a more minor level, are subjective. At least based on my experience.

 Their existence is not subjective. They either there or they're not.  How one views them, of course like everything else, is subjective. 

I know for me personally, If I am immersed in the story (i.e., excited about my destination), I tend not to notice them. If I am bored by the story - they are like potholes - can't help but to notice them. 

One person's typo could be another person's dialect. Pro readers don't care about so-called typos, they read for consistency, no matter how the script is written. Read for the craft. No crafting = unreadable for both pro and non-pro readers.

One person's typo could be another person's dialect. Pro readers don't care about so-called typos, they read for consistency, no matter how the script is written. Read for the craft. No crafting = unreadable for both pro and non-pro readers.

That is not at all the point.

If I write their 20 times rather than there - I am being consistent.  But I still have typos. Ya think a pro would say - good on ya for consistency?

Most competitions I know of don't use the judges for feedback so there's no correlation. All the feedback entries are farmed out to a third-party system that offers it at a wholesale rate. It just gives competition organisers another avenue to make profit. It's an up-sell.

Wow - I had no idea they did that - that makes it even worse.

A typo would be an indication of a lack of care in someone's work.  There is normally or correlation with this and a poor story and therefore a bad screenplay. But one doesn't cause the other. If a judge cannot see the story because there are typos they are not a judge of story, they are a proof reader.  Would the story be easier and read and perhaps more enjoyable with no typos? For sure.  May that impact on their assessment? They are human, probably.

There seems to be a lot of weight added to "credible" services.  I would like to see some form of qualification or testing regime so we could find the good ones. Then I may have faith in the industry. Go to reddit and watch the screenwriting thread for a week. You will see at least one person say they are going to start a coverage service. Or they are not making it as a screenwriter, so they are going to offer notes till they get their big break.  For me, this is that industry.

Doing some self assessment I think I have found the thing that I dislike the most. Is that it has taken the name of a function within a production company and used to describe a service that it isn't.  My understanding is that studios/production companies etc have for decades had lower graded staff read through the mountain of submissions in a hope of finding a gem.  It is like "panning for gold".  This was called "coverage". 

This industry has taken that term and implies that they know what every one of those low paid staff is looking for and can get you through that door.  Which I believe is a scam. I put forward this thesis. If it is a matrix and some form of engineering process, why aren't they doing it? John August got a cheque for $400,000 this year for his backend off "Charlie and the chocolate factory".  How many $300 coverage will they need to do to get that.

I like how the Austin Film Festival does it.  For NO EXTRA FEE they give you the judges notes. Just her notes. The thought process as the script was being read.

I know it is exceedingly hard to get feedback on your writing and this is what these service are good for.  Feedback is oxygen to creative people. We all writer are needy people by nature. We writer stories in a hope that they please others and at some level that validates us.  This is why this industry exists.  I think if that is the function it serves for a writer I am all for them.  But they are not on here trying to improve their skill through discuss and debate.  They are not here, informing others and learning from others opinion.  I would say they are less skilled than writers I know.

Nice post, Craig.

Totally agree with you on typos (note: I still have way too many despite pretty sincere efforts not to). My only point in mentioning them before (and that was in a humorous way) is that they are probably the only part of a script review that is objective. But I am with your thoughts on this (formatting mistakes as well). If I am immersed in a great story - I'm not noticing them at all because I am engrossed. If I am in the middle of a poor one - they tend to stick out like a pimple on a porcelain doll.

I have purchased notes 4 o4 5 times in the 12 years I have been writing. In all these cases I researched the person I was getting the review from, looked at reviews of their work as well as samples. In it is tough sledding - I agree with you that some rating service would be great. And you are right - it is not "coverage" in the traditional sense of the word.

I'm wary of paying for coverage again. But if I opt for paid coverage/analysis of my screenplay, I'll be very careful in asking to see samples of their work and asking about their background and approach. If I'm paying $100+ for a professional service, I expect constructive feedback that respects the writer's work even if the critique is severe. I don't think it's acceptable to negate the story or characters or call the work stupid and worthless. If they're professionals and providing coverage for a fee then they should treat the writer with respect and not like a wayward child who doesn't understand "the business." Maybe that's too idealistic but unfortunately there are people who seem reputable who treat writers (their clients) badly. Thoughtful analysis can be so helpful but I want to also protect the spirit of my work.

Re typos, well, every once in a while there could be a few errors that slip through. But if you're a writer then correct spelling and grammar is part of your game, right? A few typos is nothing to be ashamed of but if the script is riddled with errors and misspellings it can really detract from everything else. 

That all makes sense to me, Kaye