Felt I had to post this, to provide the information for anyone else considering using the coverage group Screenplayreaders.com

A few details about my past experience with them.  I have used them three times now.  The first two resulted in one pass, and one consider with revisions.  (While I emphatically don't agree with the reasons for the pass, I respect the reader's difference in opinion and didn't question it on a general quality level.)  

After the consider, I revised the script in question per the recommendations and resubmitted.  (Unfortunately, I was told that the original reader was no longer with the company, and it was therefore necessary to use a different reader for the follow-up review.)

I do wish to *also* point out that my dealings with Brian - the owner of Screenplayreaders - has up until now been 100% positive.  In our correspondence, he always seemed extremely nice, and cheerful.

Then I got the last review.  First, the script went from consider to pass.  (After having made the suggested recommendations.)  Obviously, there's a lack of consistency within the agency there.  While this *could* partially be due to a simple difference in opinion and/or taste between two individual readers, the QUALITY of the coverage was absolutely horrific, including:

* Actual errors in the script summation
* Extremely disjointed writing and a typo
* Complete omission of discussion of the script's theme, and the last several scenes

I received this coverage this past weekend (at least one day after the 72 hour deadline that they guarantee.)

Even more distressing, I wrote an understanding, thoughtful email to Brian about this when I received the coverage, and asked that he review this reader's output in the interest of quality service.  I waited several days before posting this, in case someone was reviewing the script prior to responding.  I did not receive a response or even a confirmation that I had written.  

Make of this what one will.  If anyone's interested in obtaining a copy of the coverage so they can judge for themselves, let me know.  

Cheers,

--J

I would use Script Savvy. Their mid-level package is very affordable and the coverage is quite detailed and introspective, plus you get the extra added bonus of being entered into their contest...

Quoted from wonkavite Then I got the last review.  First, the script went from consider to pass.  (After having made the suggested recommendations.)  Obviously, there's a lack of consistency within the agency there.  While this *could* partially be due to a simple difference in opinion and/or taste between two individual readers

Janet,

I've used Screenplay Readers in the past with mixed to good results.
And I've been in the same CONSIDER back to PASS scenario.
It's a slippery slope to claim a lack of consistency based upon your "grade".
There's no "company standard" coverage readers use.
It is purely suggestive and the "rules" are different with each reader.

I found myself dangerously close to the "the fault is with them" thinking.
But, I realized, I was being foolish. This is how it is, get used to it.
It's the same when a producer has one of his readers go over your script.
The only difference here is that the AUTHOR is paying for the service.
There are no textbook guidelines readers use to base their opinions and ratings.

Coverage is a hurdle with no set rules, it's a necessary evil in many cases.
So, why fight the hurdle? Learn what you can from it, then jump it.
Jeff can personally attest that I got "rude coverage" once.
But, once I settled, there was plenty to learn from the snarkyness.
And snot nosed interns looking for a leg up will trash your script if it helps their career.
Best get used to the game now, when it doesn't cost you anything but a little cash.

Quoted from wonkavite the QUALITY of the coverage was absolutely horrific, including: * Actual errors in the script summation * Extremely disjointed writing and a typo * Complete omission of discussion of the script's theme, and the last several scenes

I've gotten errors in the synopsis many times.
My first reaction was to put the blame on the readers, too.
However, after marinating in my brain for a few days, an idea occurred to me.
"What if part of the errors were due to me not telling a concise story?"
Once I approached the dreaded synop with that attitude, my scripts got better.

As to disjointed writing and lack of theme mention, that sounds lame.
You should be able to glean some useful criticisms, disjointed writing makes it harder.

Quoted from wonkavite I received this coverage this past weekend (at least one day after the 72 hour deadline that they guarantee.)

The 72 hours thing is "three working days", not including weekends.
I have submitted scripts on Friday afternoon and gotten them on Monday morning.
But, their official work schedule is Mon - Fri, 9 to 4.

Quoted from wonkavite Even more distressing, I wrote an understanding, thoughtful email to Brian about this when I received the coverage, and asked that he review this reader's output in the interest of quality service.  I waited several days before posting this, in case someone was reviewing the script prior to responding.  I did not receive a response or even a confirmation that I had written.

That sounds very unlike the Brian I've had personal dealings with.
He's been very cooperative and courteous when I've had issues to address.
Even gave me free coverage due to a delay on their end over a long holiday weekend.

Quoted from wonkavite Make of this what one will.  If anyone's interested in obtaining a copy of the coverage so they can judge for themselves, let me know. Cheers, --J

Sure, e-mail me the coverage, I'll take a gander.

Regards,
E.D.

I'm going to jump in on Wonkavite's side here simply because I received, for my first GA coverage, a fairly illiterate, error-filled piece of coverage as well. I think we can all be dispassionate enough about our work and step back far enough to judge when the "judger" is someone who's capable of judging and when they are not..

I used Screenplayreaders once. My opinion is mixed, the experience interesting. They gave my script a "consider" and used mostly positive language. The overall analysis, for the price, was probably fairly good. They did identify the main weakness in the script, as well as its strengths.

One thing disturbed me though. The reader seemed to think, based his remark, that a town mayor works for the federal government. I can't picture any American thinking that, no matter how ignorant of American government. So I believe the reading is outsourced. Which is fine, but they should be up front about that, if it's the case.

I sent Brian a very polite message, thanking them for the work, but questioning the outsourcing issue. The result he was so angry he banned me from their company! And I mean my email was extremely polite, and not at all accusatory. Makes me think I hit a nerve.

You get what you pay for, and they probably do a pretty good job for the price. How much that coverage is worth when you're trying to market your script I have no idea.

Quoted from ajr I'm going to jump in on Wonkavite's side here simply because I received, for my first GA coverage, a fairly illiterate, error-filled piece of coverage as well. I think we can all be dispassionate enough about our work and step back far enough to judge when the "judger" is someone who's capable of judging and when they are not..

I agree with you, Anthony, in principle.
However, I maintain that there were still good things to be gleaned, in my cases.
To me, it's not a black and white issue. I don't subscribe to that thinking.
I learn what I can, apply it, then chalk it up to experience, and move on.

I'm not against Janet in the slightest on this issue.
I've been in similar situations and was upset at first.
I'm recommending a circumspect approach to get what you can out of it.

I'd be shocked if there was nothing to take away from the coverage, zero.
But who knows, could be the case with this one, hopefully, I'll see for myself.

Screenplay Readers is fast and cheap, comparatively in the marketplace.
It can be a trade off, more expensive services may be better.
Script Savvy looks good, but takes a while to return the feedback.

I'm surprised that Brian hasn't gotten back to Janet over her concerns.
He was very good about that in my case.

It's frustrating when you feel you've been judged by some snot nose, agreed.
But, I hear stories like that all the time for folks in the industry.
I say, get used to it now when it only costs a few bucks and not valuable contacts, IMO.

Regards,
E.D.

Script Savvy gets it back to you in no more than 30 days if I recall - they have to because you are part of the contest. It's probably a lot faster than that in reality. And believe me, their coverage is phenomenal - very detailed. And rather than giving a "consider" or "pass", they rate in 6 different categories from 1 to 10, which I find more helpful than a generic "pass/fail" rating...

Quoted from ajr Script Savvy gets it back to you in no more than 30 days if I recall - they have to because you are part of the contest. It's probably a lot faster than that in reality. And believe me, their coverage is phenomenal - very detailed. And rather than giving a "consider" or "pass", they rate in 6 different categories from 1 to 10, which I find more helpful than a generic "pass/fail" rating...

I did look over their rating system, looks solid, agreed.
When I'm not in a time crunch prepping for a pitch, I'll try them.
Thanks for the info!

E.D.

I got a CONSIDER for Finders Keepers from them. Did a rewrite with the suggestions that were offered and sent it in again and got a PASS. It left me a little confused to be honest.

I have used them 5 times by now for various scripts (no, I don't post everything I write here) and think they are pretty decent over all for the money.

Absolute best and valuable comments come from the members here though. Here you get to hear everyone's thoughts. Everything from I hated it to just my kinda film!!  

Hey Brett -

Will definitely send you the coverage - I think you'll see what I mean when you read it.  

Like I mentioned before - my first "pass" with them I don't fault them for.  (Don't agree with the reason, but wouldn't critique it as shoddy work per-se.)

I made a concerted point to ensure that the quality was actually bad, vs. my writer's ego getting in the way.  This coverage?  Significantly poor quality.  Regarding the omissions.  At least three pivotal scenes at the end, completely erased in the summary.

Re: the deadline: took the weekend timeframe into account.  It was still late.

I had a wonderful time corresponding with Brian, too.  But received no response this time...not even a confirmation that he had received the email.  And I waited several days for a response, prior to posting this.

It's a shame.   I had hoped for better, considering that even for $59, one should get fair value.

Brett - PM me your email?  I'll send it along.

Script Savvy's mid-level coverage is also $60 - so it appears the only difference is that you have to wait for it a bit longer.

And as they say, some things are worth waiting for... (0:

Here's someone else I've used:

http://www.hollywoodscript.com/

Much more expensive, however he's an industry insider, and you get notes plus a phone conversation with him...

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?

I agree with Pia, the reviews are better here...but the coverage reviews, even the cheap ones, do a good job of staying focused on what's most important.

Here's another tip - you don't always have to pay a coverage service for coverage quotes. IF you were able to get a favorable remark, in writing, from an industry professional of some note, ask them if they would mind if you used it in your queries and press kit.

And though I've never used them, this is one of the sites I hear is well respected in the industry (I forget the other site now!):

http://www.scriptshark.com/

Only for the daring, and those who have a bit of money to spend...

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.

Quoted from ajr Script Savvy gets it back to you in no more than 30 days if I recall - they have to because you are part of the contest. It's probably a lot faster than that in reality. And believe me, their coverage is phenomenal - very detailed. And rather than giving a "consider" or "pass", they rate in 6 different categories from 1 to 10, which I find more helpful than a generic "pass/fail" rating...

I used Script Savvy a few times for their coverage.

They were good and I recommened them here to others BUT I entered their January 2011 contest. They took my money and I never heard a word back from them.

I emailed them asking for my coverage and never got a reply.

I'm not so sure I'd enter that one again.

Cindy

Quoted from bert 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.

He's lying...there's no way he sent it in...and even if he did he's made up the scores.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films He's lying...there's no way he sent it in...and even if he did he's made up the scores.

This thought crossed my mind yesterday.
Since the fracas here, said individual has removed most of his flammable content.
Which, in my mind, gives credence to this hypothesis.
I wonder what a Script Savvy rep would have to say about those scores.
I suppose the "proof" would be in the PDF.

E.D.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films He's lying...there's no way he sent it in...and even if he did he's made up the scores.

No, Rick -- the link is to a dense thread, but if you follow along, looking at just his posts, you will find that he also posted the feedback itself.

It is quite long, and reads like "real" feedback that he is not likely to have invented.

Somebody else chimed in later about some recent chaos at Script Savvy, like a death in the family or something, which may account for part of it, but still.

Quoted from bert Somebody else chimed in later about some recent chaos at Script Savvy, like a death in the family or something, which may account for part of it, but still.

This would explain the delay in contest results mentioned on the site.
Apparently, they're backlogged a few months. I wondered about that.

Coverage is an irksome necessity that incites irksome sentiments.
I don't know anyone that's totally agreeable to the process.

Personally, I've only used the low cost ones.
I go with SR because they're fast and cheap.
The quick turnaround works when I want to do multiple drafts pronto.
Four rounds of coverage in as many weeks is hard to come by from most agencies.

E.D.

@ Bert:

Fair enough, then I apologise profusely to the fellow. It just seemed too good to be true.

Might be an idea to delete my earlier post.

There is an innate problem that some of these coverage sites will face...giving honest, but "bad" reviews may lead them to get abuse and cause writers who are precious about their work to give bad feedback about the company...thus reducing profitability etc.

It becomes in their interest to give out good coverage regardless of the objective quality.

It's like what happens on Zoetrope. If you give less than 8/10 on a review it causes a flame war.

I read the thread over on Movie Poet, pretty much completely.

There's no way that coverage can be real, based on the script in question. Seriously, no way.

Something's more than fishy here, and I'd have to elan on betting the writer himself cooked the coverage himself, as there's just no way anyone employed by any coverage company could allow one of their employees to so completely off base.

Many things are a matter of opinion, but what was inside that script is way beyond opinion...it's flat out wrong and an example of piss poor writing.

I read the coverage he posted and it seems pretty spot on - indicative of how Script Savvy writes coverage.

So answer me this - how does a writer do a poor job at writing a script, and then become a brilliant hoaxster using proper language - industry and otherwise - in giving fake coverage?

That's a very good point, Anthony, and one I actually was thinking about this morning (and if that's what I'm thinking about, I obviously have a little too much time on my hands, no?).

But, I mean, c'mon...one of the categories regards typos and the like, and if I remember correctly, he got 8 out of 10, and there wee like 50+ mistakes on the very first page alone!

I wish someone knew someone at Script Savy so we could get to the bottom of this.

He might have fudged the numbers upward a bit; there's no way to tell that. But the coverage seems to be the coverage he received...

Think of this as well - you're paying Script Savvy, so they, unlike the rest of us, must slough through a muddy opening. Perhaps, on balance, in looking back SS found the story to be something of value, some good characters in it, etc. We'll never know because we didn't finish the read.

Also, you only post the good portions of the coverage (I know I do); you don't see where he may have gotten corrections.

Again, wish we knew the real story, cause I for one do not buy it.

I've seen coverage on scripts that are literally light years ahead of this script, and the coverage is almost always negative, for the most part.

And there are people over at movie Poet who did read the entire script and are adamant that something's wrong, because they know how bad it is after finishing it.

Received a response from Brian.  With all respect to him, I am posting a copy of our respective correspondence.   In his most recent email, he makes valid points about the difficulty of checking out any writer complaints regarding coverage. (I'm sure they get alot of griping in their business.) But I think I make a few valid points as well.   I wish Screenplayreaders the best.  But given the lack of quality control, I question whether I'll be using them again...  (Anyone interested in reading the coverage for the script, please pm me...)

**********************************************

Dear Brian -

Thank you kindly for the response.  (From your out of email notification, I assume that you are writing while on vacation - and that effort is appreciated.)

While my original email was not meant to be critical, I do admit that I was surprised that I had received no confirmation that it was sent, given that it's content questioned the output of one of your readers.  (Given my past experience with you, I sensed that you did/do care for the quality of your firm's coverage services...and therefore automatically assumed that you would look into the matter... in case my argument had merit.)

I  wish to note that I've used Screenplay Readers three times now.  The first time, my script received a pass.  While I did not agree with the opinion of the reader, I did not consider the review inaccurate or sloppy - and therefore accepted it as for what it was worth.  I do not believe my scripts are 100% perfect (who's is?), and welcome constructive criticism to improve my work.  (If I consider my work to be "gold", what is the purpose of paying for coverage in the first place?)

As previously mentioned, my complaint was founded on the quality of the coverage reader's work itself.  Actual inaccuracies in summarizing plot and characters, omission of complete scenes, and the failure to even note the thematic of the script, and B story for the plot.

On your website, you write that "Our script readers are insightful, thorough, experienced, and have an absolute passion for screenwriting and screenwriters."  That was far, far from my experience with AK.   And while I consistently strive for clarity in my writing, I do not believe that a script can be made "idiot proof."  If a reader is not concerned with accuracy, or an insightful read, there is little that can be done to prevent that.

I fully understand and respect that there aren't enough hours in the day to research every case of a "disgruntled writer"...especially given the volume of business you deal with on a regular basis.    Unfortunately, that also says to me that you did not have time to spot-check, or police your employees' work...even when their output proves to be sub-par.  $59 may not be much.  But in this economy, every dollar counts.

Given my experience with AK's output, I cannot trust that  scripts submitted to Screenplayreaders will be accurately reviewed. And without basic accuracy - the coverage is of little use.  To myself, or anyone else.

I appreciate the time that you have spent writing back to me.   Since you have noted my thread on Simply scripts, I'll post both your reply and my response...so that future writers may make up their own mind, without any further bias on my part.

*************************************************

Hi Janet

Thanks for writing.  I took at face value your closing statement, which was "My reason for writing is not at all to criticize, but make sure that you are aware of this particular reader's output, for future reference," and assumed you were not looking for a response.

But now that you've re-sent the same email, I shall reply, with all due respect to you and thanks for your patience.

Put simply, I wish we could satisfy our customers 100% of the time, but we simply can't.  In such a subjective, opinion-oriented line of work, it's a very difficult task!

1 out of every 30 of our writer clients writes a similar email, with enumerations of where our reader "got it wrong."

9 out of 10 of THOSE emails come from screenwriters who fail to understand what the concept of Script Coverage is, as opposed to more in-depth Script Notes or Script Consulting.  

Your email was understanding, professional and respectful, however, while most aren't.  Thank you for that!

Your points may be 100% valid, and I take your word for it that our reader didn't reflect all the details you mentioned in their coverage.  

But, respectfully, our $59 script coverage service reflects an industry-standard script coverage, which entails a single read, and a single pass at notes by a reader, as opposed to a more in-depth, more detailed analysis of your screenplay, with line-by-line script notes.

What you say are factual errors, are actually not factual errors.  If they're errors, they're errors of the reader not understanding your script correctly.

This can be 100% the reader's fault, or it can be 100% your fault, or it can be a mixture of both.

But the only way to find out who's more responsible for the details being missed, is for me to read your script thoroughly, and then compare it to the analysis by the reader which you received, which unfortunately, I cannot do.  Because if I did that for every client who complained about their coverage, I would be doing 2 of those per day.

Script coverage is tricky.  Just as an aside, had you sent that script in to an agency, and that coverage was written, you'd've never even SEEN that coverage.  Yet, your script would've been misunderstood by an agent's reader, and perhaps never passed up the "food chain" towards a sale, perhaps through no fault of your own.

Or, perhaps there could be something you could do to make your script IDIOT PROOF... ?

I know.  This may seem as cold comfort.  But I look at that sort of misunderstanding as an opportunity to further idiot-proof my screenplay.  You have the luxury of living with your script for years as you write it.  Readers have 1-2 hours max, and one pass.  Not an excuse for sloppy coverage, but this hopefully serves as context.

However, I don't want to bullheadly insist that I'm right, or that you're wrong, and lose a potential repeat customer, but more importantly, a potential friend and/or ally in the future.  

The best I can do is meet you in the middle, with what I hope you'll consider a fair solution.

To that end, please accept the custom coupon code JANET25 for 25% off any future services from us, should you want to try us again.  I'll set it to expire at the end of November, so you can have ample time to utilize it, as many times as you like.

If you consider this a fair offer, would you reflect as much on the Simply Scripts forum?  Very rarely do positive solutions or outcomes ever get aired in forums, and if this is satisfactory to you, it sure would help bring counterbalance to the thread you initiated over there.  If not, I understand, and respect your decision.

Thanks again, Janet.

Brian

*************************************************

> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Janet Clarke
> To: Screenplay Readers
> Sent: Friday, August 5, 2011 4:52 PM
> Subject: Territory Coverage
>
> Hi Brian -
>
> Received the coverage- wanted to first and foremost let you know it's been a consistent pleasure dealing with you...you obviously care about the quality of service that Screenplay Readers puts out, and get involved firsthand with the process.  For that - many thanks.
>
> Also for that reason, I was honestly shocked to receive today's coverage.  While I 100% understand the need to back one's readers, I implore you to read the attached coverage of Territory (a script which went from a "consider with revisions" to a pass - after having made the suggested revisions from the previous reader - also attached for reference.)
>
> My concern is that AK may be new; my aim is to make sure you're aware of AK's style of output, in order to prevent other writers from having a similar experience.
>
> While I understand that opinions and tastes differ (and no script is guaranteed a favorable review) I found AK's coverage to be marked by omissions and actual errors regarding the script itself.
>
> Following are a few of the more noteworthy examples:
>
> * States that Kate suspects Daniello.  (She never did, throughout the script.)  
>
> * Identified Kurt as a journalist, after he explains in the script that he's a photographer
>
> * Describing two 30 year old characters as "wrinkled"
>
> * Stating that there is a romantic setup between Kate and Kurt.  (In the character's first scene, Kate shoots down Kurt as an option, and shows him a picture of her boyfriend)
>
> * Identifying the creature in the "kitchen" scene as large (the body is explicitly described as small, with light showing through the doorway on all sides)
>
> * Stating that the Kurt character confesses to the murders, prior to being taken into custody (he confesses after a thorough police grilling)
>
> * Compete omission of the B-story with Eva, and the thematic of "compromising with evil for the greater good."  Along these lines, AK also completely fails to summarize the last several scenes in the script (which have significant plot points.)
>
> Aside from such items, AK's writing also appears to be disjointed and awkward (most notable example being "and call girl RIZA, 23, who is pregnant, which makes her cry.")
>
> I know from previous communications that you care deeply about the quality of the coverage offered by Screenplay Readers.  My reason for writing is not at all to criticize, but make sure that you are aware of this particular reader's output, for future reference.
>
> Best,
>
> --Janet Goodman-Clarke

It seems like he defended their service very well. We really can only expect so much for $60, and a 48 hr turnaround. And now everyone can use Janet25 for a discount! Just kidding. I can't anyway. I'm banned.

Personally, this doesn't do anything for me, fix what was wrong, or give me a good feeling towards this company's coverage service.

What Brian should have done is either give your next coverage free, or actually spent the hour or so to read your script and quickly compare his personal notes with AK's.

I understadn everyone's in it for the bucks, but they also have to realize that unhappy clients are no longer clients, period.  And, the fact that Brian was aware of the thread here, and potentially 100's of clients, his offer and response is unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned.

Janet, you know I haven't read the updated draft that the coverage was based on, so I can't completely and accurately say that the reader was right or wrong, or somewhere in between...but the tone of his coverage was far from acceptable, in many ways, IMO, and his suggestions were either weak or useless.

As I've said over and over again, countless times, coverage is a waste, for the most part.  You have no idea what level the reader actually is.  And you have no idea how thoroughly he/she read, and what amount of time was spent.  The really bad thing here is that you rewrote this, based on coverage notes that said said "with a rewrite, this could be a recommended script", and then, you had a completely different reader give you a grade down, as "pass", after you followed the coverage suggestions.

Brian needs to rethink his decision or expect not to get any SS writers in the future.

Your thoughts?

Hi Jeff -

Honestly, I'd agree.  

If it were my service, I would have checked the script and coverage to see if the complaining writer's points were valid.  If they had merit, I would have offered the choice of either a refund, or a second coverage by a more seasoned reader - for publicity's sake, if nothing else.

But that's just me.  OTHO, if Brian did that with every single disgruntled reader, he'd probably go out of business...    (And I'm not saying that as a slam on Screenplayreaders.com.  I'm sure there are a lot of writers that bitch just because their scripts aren't considered golden and beyond reproach.)  

(Since you've read the coverage in question, I definitely want to point out that my complaints weren't regarding any  criticisms re: pacing or structure...that's a gray area, that I consider fully open to  interpretation.)  Rather, it's the inaccuracies of the summary and omissions in plot that prompted me to question the quality of the coverage...and the  professionalism of this particular reader.

--J

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!

Quoted from ajr Jeff, 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...

Personally, I like coverage so I can put nice quotes on my leave behind poster.
Occasionally, I'll get a decent piece of advice in the comments.
But it's really about getting more sizzle on that image to market my script.

Many times, a request for coverage became a script request because of it.  
I carefully chose quotes to describe the flavor and arc of the story.
I would point out the coverage quotes on the poster to producers.
9 times out of 10, they read those quotes and don't want to see more coverage.

I also realize I'm lucky to have a talented partner to make the ZP poster.
But the theory still applies just fine to query letters and one pages to give folks.
Why not use those "reviews" like studios do to market their releases?

E.D.

Quoted from ajr To say that a production company will not read your script without positive coverage is untrue.

This is correct. Same applies to managers and agents. There might be some that request coverage, but it is not industry standard. I know plenty of writers who got read (and even repped) by sending out cold queries without any coverage attached.

You do not have to pay your way in.

What year are you guys talking about?

There are very, very few agencies, Prodcos, studios, etc. that are accepting any unsolicited scripts, period.

And there are plenty that are, Jeff.

I'll give you a weird example - I've queried CAA a number of times; different agents. Some have invited me to send the script, or have responded to me personally that their client is unavailable, and others have sent their "standard" letter from the submissions department that they as a company do not accept unsolicited material.

The point? If your query is interesting enough to breach the barrier - and this includes the subject line - it sometimes does not matter what "policy" is.

Agents and managers are more concerned about whether your project is funded nowadays...

Not long ago there was a thread about coverage at DoneDealPro. The cool thing is that people working in the industry joined the discussion.

http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=59905&

The whole thread is pretty interesting and sometimes brutally blunt, but only the first pages are about coverage.

I encourage everyone to check the opinion of the following posters:

Battledolphinzero: he's a Black List writer.

Todd Karate: he broke in years ago landing a blind script deal at Warner Brothers.

SbsScript: he's a manager at 6-17

Craig Mazin: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0563301/

michaelb: he's a manager at Industry Entertainment.

jcgary: repped writer and former pro reader with 10 years of experience at William Morris.

Quoted from Mr.Z Not long ago there was a thread about coverage at DoneDealPro. The cool thing is that people working in the industry joined the discussion. http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=59905& The whole thread is pretty interesting and sometimes brutally blunt, but only the first pages are about coverage.

Thanks for the link, you writing demon you!
Scott the Reader seems like an interesting bloke.
I shot him an e-mail, that DoneDeal deal looks rather useful!

Regards,
E.D.

Three words: Craig Mazin rules!

"Just to put into light the comparison you just made. Do you know what the spec sale numbers are in the market now? Last year, something like 42 specs sold (for the year). I believe it was 4% of the scripts sent out around town.

In 1999, Warner Bros bought 87 specs (on their own). Something like 350 to 400 specs sold that year. "

Just 42 scripts sold a year!!!!

If that's true, it's just about pointless even trying.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films "Just to put into light the comparison you just made. Do you know what the spec sale numbers are in the market now? Last year, something like 42 specs sold (for the year). I believe it was 4% of the scripts sent out around town. In 1999, Warner Bros bought 87 specs (on their own). Something like 350 to 400 specs sold that year. " Just 42 scripts sold a year!!!! If that's true, it's just about pointless even trying.

I gotta believe or I'll never have a chance of navigating that Hollywood asteroid field.

E.D.

Quoted from ajr Three words: Craig Mazin rules!

Yes he does.  Derek Haas is another.  

I'd recommend everyone spend sometime on Done Deal Pro and read the post of the writers actuallty working in the industry...and check out their blogs.

Ghost

And he's from Brooklyn, which probably has a good deal to do with why he rules...

And if he were from the Bronx, he'd be even better!    (Sorry, had to go for the borough-bias...)

But he's written a bunch of garbage!  What does he rule?  And why does he rule it?  And Brooklyn?  

I don't follow...

You linked Scream 4 here.  What's that got to do with Craig Mazan's writing credits?

Based on what I'm looking at, he's written the following...

Rocket Man
Senseless
Scary Movie 3
Scary Movie 4
Super Hero Movie
Hangover 2

Quoted from Dreamscale I don't follow... You linked Scream 4 here.  What's that got to do with Craig Mazan's writing credits? Based on what I'm looking at, he's written the following... Rocket Man Senseless Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4 Super Hero Movie Hangover 2

My mistake.   I've got to have my eyes checked.  

An apology is in order Dreamscale...

His so called garbage has grossed millions worldwide... for a reason.

Ghostie

Jeff, I don't understand you sometimes. Those films may not have been Oscar contenders, but even I have either seen them or heard of them so in my book, that's still pretty impressive. Most pro writers don't even get a chance to write that many scripts that actually get produced and shown in theaters.

Pia, Anthony commented that this writer "rules".  Ghost seconded that comment.  When I checked out his IMDB credits, I saw those movies, and wondered what in the world "rules" about writing those films.

I agree that it's very impressive when a writer gets credit for any wide screen release film, but the majority of these films have been critically lambasted.

So, are we saying all writers who have written films, "rule" now?

If so, Uwe Boll rules!

Jeff, read the thread that Z posted - I meant that Mazin "rules" because of what he said on donedealpro...

And yes, setting aside quality and personal opinion, the amount of his scripts that have gotten theatrical release is impressive...

OK, Anthony, I misunderstood you.  I apologize.

The guy's movies have made a shitload of money, so i guess I shouldn't be saying any negative shit about him anyways.

Boy, Jeff. you really put these produced writers in a shoebox. I'm not saying I think some of thier credits are works of art. But I will say that if they didn't write them, and paid to do so, some other joker would. In some cases, they are re-written for better or worse anyway.

All I know is, they get paid, even if it means getting punked.


On a related topic:

I, too, have, in the past, used coverage services. I'll still use them from time to time, but I generally feel that if I get even near a consider, I will not make any drastic changes to the script because outside of tech issues, it is all subjective. There is one script of mine that I refuse to show a soul anymore. It's gotten tons of coverage, some good, some bad. I changed so much based on "suggestions" and "I should do this" and "I should do that" what eventually happened to that script is that even I don't know what it was about anymore. It was this one place back in the early to mid 90s...they would always send me snail mails about events in LA that would take place within three days of getting the announcement.

They used film students for the coverage, who would always cite screenwriter's books in notations (usually the author, not the book)...can't recall the name, I'd have to dig up the notes in the attic; They usually went 2-3 pages long. Sometimes 4.

The script in question is a mess now to this day. I don't know how to fix it but one way: wipe the **** slate clean. Maybe after I'm done with my current script which should be tonight.

I tend to like the coverages given by those who run contests, like Savvy mentioned above and Bluecat.

I've been doing some research on different companies for Screenplay coverage.  I narrowed it down to one that peaked my interest.  Coverage ink  

After reading their release form, especially #5, I was immediately turned off. http://www.coverageink.com/release.php.  

Is this the norm pertaining to release forms dealing with Screenplay coverage companies?

This is pretty standard.  There are only so many types of stories out there and the same companies will receive similar scripts.  They're just covering themselves.


Phil

Quoted from dogglebe This is pretty standard.  There are only so many types of stories out there and the same companies will receive similar scripts.  They're just covering themselves. Phil

Thanks Phil, I was wondering that, but was not quiet sure.  I think I might try them out.  They seem to offer a lot for the price.