For those singing the praises of Script Savvy, I would point you here:

http://moviepoet.com/reply.aspx?thread=2993&forum=1

Where this script is discussed:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-thriller/m-1309154485/

Anybody remember that one?

Well, the author posted his Script Savvy feedback to prove to everyone that his scores were just superdy-duper -- and they were --

-- but what it really did was raise tons of doubt about the quality (read "truthfulness") of what you get from Script Savvy.

I had one experience with them. What the reader said or didn't say isn't what bugged me.  It was the fact that this "professional script reader" misspelled my title, "The Scorsese Club" numerous times.  Scorsese is a hard name to spell, sure, and I twitch with annoyance whenever someone misspells it.  But when I'm paying for a service from "professional script readers" and they can't even spell the name of one of the best out there especially when it's written on the fucking title page in big letters, I can't help but raise an eyebrow.

Just sayin'.

I actually forgot to mention that they did send me someone else's script notes. I sent him an e-mail and got an immediate response and my script comments the next day.  I did of course read the other guy's comments and they were similar to mine in tone, comments, suggestions and so on.  

Quoted from leitskev I think we have to keep in mind that it takes, I would say, at least 2 to 3 hours to thoroughly read a script and then write useful notes. In fact, if someone can do that in 3 hours that's pretty good, I think. So the reader is getting, what, $10 to $15 per hour?

A friend of mine was asked to be a reader for a comp once. He was supposed to read and provide similar coverage as these guys. He was going to be paid $20/script. He had to say no thanks because they wanted him to read 75 or so scripts over one weekend...

Wouldn't it be best to invest that money into contests like Shriekfest which also provides coverage if wanted?

Quoted from Mr.Ripley Wouldn't it be best to invest that money into contests like Shriekfest which also provides coverage if wanted?

Agree completely.  

Cheers,

-J

Something smart usually comes out of me.   

Gabe

http://www.hollywoodscript.com/

That one looks really good, Anthony. Thank you for that.

No problem, Kev. It was cool to talk to him - he's the guy who basically created "Charles in Charge", and he definitely loves writers...

Anthony, definitely better to pay for review by someone where you know who he is, instead of Reader P. His resume looks pretty good too. And the contest idea, with the free listings, is a huge potential bonus.

Pia: I could not read and review that many scripts in a weekend if you offered me a million dollara! And that's if the scripts were all written by competent writers, which I'm sure is not the case. Honestly, I don't think I could read 10 feature scripts. Reading scripts and writing coherent reviews is something I consider fairly hard work. Takes time and coffee, sometimes beer.

Janet,

I read the coverage, it was similar to an experience I had.
I honestly don't pay much attention to the synopsis SR offers.
If anything, I tend to use it as an indicator of how well I'm relaying plot points.
If the reader misinterpreted it, perhaps I need to clarify my intentions better.
It's the best way I can spin what could easily be taken as across the board poor work.

I'm guessing that readers spend no more than an hour or so on a script.
I've read in a few places that's the general rule of thumb around town.
So, when things get bumpy on the page, they tend to tune out.
I don't like it, but I get it. There are probably things I can do to fix that.
An author called it, minimizing reasons why someone would put down your script.

In summation, you have a valid point, that synop was pretty rancid.
And I suspect it was cobbled out as they speed read your script.
I thought the critical comments had merit, albeit repetitive and a bit vague.

I look at my experience with SR as a primer for studio coverage notes.
So, I might as well get used to the static and machinations of that process now.

I hope Brian gets back to you, at least.
Perhaps you'll find more helpful information in a more detailed oriented service.

Regards,
E.D.

I'm very cautious when paying for any coverage.

On one occasion, I got a heap of rude, unhelpful, mis-spelled comments regarding a vampire script.

Which is all cool and the gang -- except there were no Vampire's in the script.  

I'm also very cautious about which competitions to enter.  

Anybody use withoutabox.com to submit either there scripts or films to festival comps? Some don't even send you any confirmation that they have actually safely recieved things. The money is gone from your bank acount pretty quick, though. I do alot more research on which comps to enter these days. So much so that it's rare I enter them.

Wow...interesting thread for sure.

I read the link Bert posted and am shocked any coverage service would provide such obviously false praise for a complete piece of crap.  I'm almost speechless, but you know me...I'm rarely if ever speechless.

IMO, script coverage is pretty lame.  You have absolutely no idea the level of the reader that is assigned to your script, first of all.  Secondly, and probably more important, is the issue of how much time is being spend on your script coverage.

It's difficult, if not impossible to even read a feature length script in an hour.  And to provide coverage notes, synopsis, etc?  All within an hour?  Can't be done, unless it is being speed read or skimmed.  And if that's the case, subtle nuances are being missed, and possibly important details are being missed.

Pretty unbelievable.

Quoted from B.C. I'm also very cautious about which competitions to enter.

I would recommend Shriekfest if you write horror. I was a finalist once. Phil was a finalist twice I think. Ah, long lost Phil... Denise Gossett is very charming and attentive. She once told me the team of readers she has and the number was impressive. Plus, I believe every script gets at least three looks if I remember correct.

I can't say anything about the feedback. i didn't pay for it. A six page short and i got all of the feedback i needed here.

Still, I wouldn't put too much into contests. I think i remember Babz saying she once met a writer who had almost a dozens scripts that've won contests, but she didn't have a single one optioned. They weren't marketable.

I've always questioned the need for coverage. I wish I could just point them to the scripts thread here and tell them thats all you should need.

James

Hey Brett -

Glad you agree - some of the lines in that summation were hideous.  Especially when they actually got details wrong (on several items.)

Re: structure and pacing - that's a grey area, I know.  I do have to stress, alot has changed in the script since last time you read it.  Quite a bit more popcorn and flash, for the summer audience.  

But when a reader makes that many gaffes in even understanding what's going on with a script...well...that brings everything written into question (especially given the likelihood that they read it in an hour.)

And while I do agree that one can "touch up a script" to improve it's readability, one should never sacrifice sublety either, just to pander to the lowest common denominator.  Unless that's what one's pitching their market for, of course.  (What I don't think is the case for the regulars here on SS.)

Jeff, isn't one of the reasons you want coverage because agents/producers will only read coverage notes first, then decide whether to read the script? And I realize that some agents and producers probably only include coverage from certain services they recognize, so again you get what you pay for.