Agreed, but one can get an idea, very, VERY quickly as to the quality or lack of quality in a script.  The person in charge can also very easily read the coverage provided and see if they think the choice of words is acceptable, or not.

We're all well aware of that other thread and script "Take This Probe And Shove It", and its artistic merit, based on the supposed coverage notes, the writer provided.

Janet, you know, based on the daft of the script in question, I was not a huge fan, but if you literally rewrote it, based on what the first reader suggested would lead to a "recommend" grade", and then all of a sudden got a "pass' grade, with a tone that was a little off the mark, to say the least, then, we obviously have a problem with this service's "service".

$60 may not be a "big" price to pay for coverage, but if it's useless, why would anyone want to waste that $60 in the first place?  And the fact that this and other services provide a potential recommend with rewrites, basically imploring the writer to submit another draft for another $60, in hopes of getting that illusive "recommend" grade, and then down grading it to a "pass", just ain't cool, in my book.

Jeff,

I'm happy to say, we agree!  

BTW - the original coverage was an actual "consider".  (Though certain recommendations were strongly encouraged.  And the rewrite followed those recommendations quite seriously...)

Cheers,

-J

Right on...we are definitely in agreement, then!  

And BTW, as you hopefully know, although I have said several times I was not a huge fan of the script, I did say several times that I liked the premise and thought there was wonderful attention to detail throughout, and something that could be a real winner.

The coverage you received did not offer valid points to get it where it needed to be...but again, I did not read the revised draft.

Brian should read your script and provide his own feedback...it wouldn't take more than a couple hours tops, and in this economy, that should be completely understood.

I think the lesson here is this: spend $240 once, on someone who knows what they're doing, rather than spending $60 four times. In my opinion, getting coverage at each stage of a re-write is overkill...

And if we're changing our scripts based on what the AKs of the world think, then we don't have the confidence of our convictions, and we're not utilizing sites like this to its fullest ability...

Your revisions should be gained from a consensus of ideas that you already know in your heart to be true...

And Jeff, coverage is not a waste - I've been asked for ours many times. Poor, uninformed coverage is a waste, and coverage by an industry professional - good coverage, that is - is like gold...

Anthony, I was waiting for a post, saying coverage isn't a waste...I was just hoping it wouldn't come right when my pasta was ready.  

So, I'll have to respond ASAP, after I eat.

I understand what you're saying completely, but I have a number of things to say.

Anthony, I wanted to get back to you.  Sorry it took so long.

I guess saying that paying for coverage is a waste, in a blanket statement, may not be accurate.

It all depends on a number of factors...

1)  Why you're getting it and what you're hoping to get out of it.

2)  Your level of expertise and the quality of the script being covered.

3)  The quality of the coverage and the level of expertise of the reader.

What pisses me off is that just about no agents, Producers, Prodcos, etc will even look at a script from a non Pro writer, unless he/she has favorable coverage, recommending the script.  This is obviously because of the fact that a number of years ago, once the internet allowed pretty much anyone to be able to write a properly formatted script, "Hollywood" was inundated with 50,000 Spec scripts each year, and 99% of them were pure garbage.

So, a bunch of these coverage sites popped up and made it sound like they can open doors for you, for a fee, of course.  Bottom line is that most of these sites totally suck, promise BS they can't deliver on, and take advantage of hopeful writers, who aren't ever going to make it, based on their level of talent...of better yet, their lack of talent.

Not to sound like a conceited know it all prickface   , but I feel confident that my level of expertise exceeds the vast majority of coverage readers.  It is highly doubtful that they're going to tell me anything about my script that I don't already know.

The level of coverage provided by most sites (for an "affordable" price) is more than half, a simple synopsis of the script, which to me, is a complete waste.  The writer better frickin' know what goes on his script, and shouldn't need some reader to regurgitate it back to them.  I understand that this shows the reader actually read the script, but it does nothing to help the writer.

The other part of the coverage is usually 100% opinion, and not knowing the level of expertise, or literally anythign about the reader, I don't see much good coming out of it.

For instance, I don't care what 45 year old housewives with 3 teenage daughters have to say about my script that deals with slicing and dicing of teenage chicks.  I want to know what horror genre lovers have to say, and since you don't get to control that in any way, IMO, it's basically a waste.

Dag, Jeff - how long exactly did that pasta take to finish off?  

Many valid points in that post.  It's a tragedy for writers (and the industry in general) that scripts need to pass through the gauntlet of coverage before an agent will even look at it.  Then the script needs to pass through an agent to reach anyone at the studio level...yet another barrier.

I fully understand *why* that is.  IE: the huge amount of unpolished work out there, and the need to sift through the junk to get to the gems.  But lord knows how many stories that really *are* entertaining, and *are* unique and creative, and better than the usual stuff that gets produced, that never see the light of day because it wasn't able to break through the obstacles to reach the "right person."

I do think that GOOD coverage  (probably the very expensive stuff) has value, assuming that it's written by someone who takes the time to truly evaluate the script, and the various facets thereof....and provide a fresh look at a story that the writer may be too close to, to see it's flaws.  Phil constantly sings the praises of Ken Mora, who provided coverage on his SF piece The Burnout.  But then, Mora provided a veritable book of notes - in depth and extensive.  Also, Mora is a known individual - not an anonymous reader of unknown qualifications.

Unfortunately, I suspect that most "affordable" coverage falls into the category of being a ticket to gain access to an agent...and little in the way of useful criticism.  

I wish that were not true, but this has been my experience to date.

I've now experienced three sets of coverage (all from Screenplayreaders.com, and not counting SS.)  The third coverage I have already commented on extensively.  The first was for Vegging Out.  Nothing much of use there (though the quality of the work was considerably higher than that of AK's.)  

The middle coverage, however, (by reader LL - who is no longer with the company) was useful - pointing out structural and pacing issues that helped me hone the script in a way that I believe did improve it.  So - scored one out of three, and spent approx. $180 in the process.   Not a great batting average.  

Though LL - if you're out there...thanks for doing a good, professional job!

Janet, I think I ate too much pasta last night...(OK, I know I ate too much!) and went straight to the sofa and watched a flick.  

I agree with you completely. The problem in Hollywood's open door policy, shutting and locking so tightly, was the result of being flooded with complete crap from "writers" who weren't and never will be writers, hoping to score big on the dream.

It sucks, cause as we all know, it seems like one does need positive coverage to get through the first gate keeper.

I watch so many movies.  I honestly must see at least 250 every year.  And, in all honesty, most are really bad, based on flawed ideas, setups, premises, and filled with ridiculous, unrealistic characters, who act and talk like complete idiots.

It's really sad, cause I see it over and over again, and wonder why no one in the production could figure out how poor many aspects are in the script itself.  It's sometimes so simple to fix glaring problems out of the gate, but, no, it doesn't seem to happen and no one seems to care.

When I get back on my feet, and get some serious moola rolling back in, I'm heading to some Pitch Fests...with Brett, and anyone else that wants to get the ball rolling.  Seems like a great way to get past the gate keepers and into the game.

so, do you think the writers of those 50 000 screenplays didn't think their scripts were gold? Do you think they thought their scripts were better than yours? I'm just asking because it sounds a little bit like "all those crappy writers ruined it for us who do know how to write...just saying.

Pia, we all know what those scripts looked like.  We all know what those scripts continue to look like.  We see and read them all the time.

And yeah, that is exactly what I'm saying.  There are very few who know how to write.  There are very few who watch enough movies to understand what works and what doesn't work.

And, yeah, YEAH, I'm one of those few  

and that's fine Jeff. I just think, most of those other writers feel the same as you.  That's all.  

I'm not arguing that, Pia.

But, IMO, it's pretty easy to pick out good writing and shitty writing.  We can all have our own opinions about whether or not a certain script has what it takes to be a successful movie, but looking at the vast majority of actual movies, it's clear, to me at least, that the peeps in charge of the green lighting scripts are pretty clueless.

Funny thing, however, is that it really doesn't matter that much about the actual quality of the script or finished product, in terms of it being a success or failure, financially.  It doesn't even matter about critical opinion.

It comes down to a number of different thangs, and the most important, seems to be marketing and a cool trailer, that gets peeps attention.

I'm actually working on the spreadsheet to end all spreadsheets, that will revel alot of interesting data.

Ray should be proud!  

It's not my # 1 focus right now, but it's an exhaustive list of films with budget and gross, and I think many will be very surprised at what it shows.

I don't give a s)^t about statistics. As a writer, I believe they only box you in and ruin your writing.

As far as good movies goes, I've watched Paranormal Activity 1 and 2. I didn't like either and was astounded to find out they are actually making #3!!!!

I think that what gets produced is a very individual choice. A script has to get someone's attention and spark their creative mind. That might be totally differnt for that person than yours. As mentioned before even though independent small budget, my "no good written in a couple of hours" short Seriously Wounded hit a nerve with a group of filmmakers in LA. They're turning that short into a short film for the festival cicuit and a webseries... This is obviously not Hollywood big budget, but what I mean with that is that what's one person's trash might actually be another person's treasure. In other words, you might think your script is superior to others, but it still has to strike a cord with some filmmakers and they might be looking for something completely different than what you think is gold....if that makes sense.  

Jeff,

To say that a production company will not read your script without positive coverage is untrue. I have had plenty of them read, and some who are now reading, who never asked about coverage. Then again, our query letter contains quotes from the coverage, so they know we have it. Nevertheless they've never asked to see the coverage before the script. Some production companies will do their own, and some agencies, particularly the ones who rep directors, will do it as well...

And of course the level and respectability of the coverage matters. My opinion though is that coverage is a marketing tool, no more and no less, and that coverage is fairly useless in re-writes. As you said Jeff, it's someone's opinion, and if someone is going to zig and zag based on the opinion of a 24 year old working for free (read the ads for interns in the trade papers), then I don't know what to tell that person...

Also, there's a way to use positive quotes from negative or ambivalent coverage. Again, it's all about marketing - get the damn script in the door and get someone turning the pages...

"but I feel confident that my level of expertise exceeds the vast majority of coverage readers."

That's why I get "Dreamscale coverage". Sometimes it hurts, but it doesn't cost as much!

I'm new to the process, but a couple of thoughts:

1) coverage is like a certificate that opens some doors. Production companies/ect. might not read the coverage notes, but knowing you have it tells them you got by the first level of screening, assuming you got a consider. Even just saying you got coverage might put you past a certain level of amateur scripts submitted by people who don't even know what coverage is. Does that make sense? Because Anthony has an agent and his script is being closely looked at by producers, if other producers sense that, they won't be concerned with coverage so much, as he's already proven he is past the first level of security.

2) then there's using coverage to help with your script, which is a different goal altogether. How useful that is depends on your experience level, and that of the reader. But it's always useful. The question is how much one is willing to pay.

In some ways, SS reads are very good. But we are not being paid to read the script, and that can make a difference.

Also, if the coverage reader is reading many dozens of scripts a week, if that is similar to what goes on with producers/agents, then the coverage read might give you a better idea what will happen at that level than someone at SS who might be qualified, but reading more casually.

And of course, if your coverage reader is MM, his expertise is not going to be the same as a coverage reader where you get the person's name and industry experience. You get what you pay for!

I've used coverage once. It was these guys. It was basically worth the $59, I have no reason to lie about that since they banned me from their service. The reader made a few glaring mistakes. And something the reader said suggested to me they were not from the US or familiar with our system of government. But the reader did get the important things right: the important strengths and weaknesses of my script. I received a "consider" , which I think was fair. The issues they suggested I address are the ones I will address when I rewrite.

But I definitely don't think one should keep sending the same script back for coverage. And if you can, I think it's probably worth spending extra use coverage where the reader is identified, or at least they are as a group. And the agencies that have a little monthly contest, that could be a nice bonus.

Back to work!