Hi, all -

Anyone have experience with this?

Tells you it's "free", and spits out coverage within minutes (which it does)/

So the "free" is "what works". And it's pretty accurate. Honestly, I was shocked.

Everything else - synopsis, how to improve, budget, casting suggestions, and score per category, etc. are $45 per script.

It's not a lot of money... but I'd rather put that toward film festivals for my short film... unless a good score on this site is the shyte for producers and financiers.

Any other experiences?

Thanks,

AJR

Are you tired of waiting for readers (humans) to get back to you...?
So this is like a drive-through fast food assessment of your work. Satisfying, but basically junk that your Mum would have told you.

It tells you what works but not what doesn't? That you pay for. And that would be the litmus test.
For now it gives you what you want to hear, free compliments and praise so you're suckered into paying.

Really? We should boycott this BS.
Never heard of it until you posted AJR. And I can't work out if you're for it or against it.

Hi, LC!

I'm very much against it... until today LOL.

Here's the thing - a reader is one person's opinion. I don't put much stock in that.

What I DO put stock in is what the industry puts stock in. And Greenlight has a quote from Scott Mednick, producer of among other things TMNT who sings its praises. So, if this is the industry shortcut? Then we all have to conform.

AJR

I think you are going to see more and more of this sort of thing, and some of it may prove useful in terms of helping identify general issues with a script.

But as Libby said, this is generic, fast-food type feedback, depth and specifics are lacking.

Greenlight Coverage uses OpenAI under the hood (says so on their Terms page), so they are just using ChatGPT for the coverage element/feedback.,

Here is feedback from the 'Creative Writing Coach' a specifically trained GPT created by Open AI, on one of my recent scripts on here (Freshbloom), and you can see the prompt I used...

Please give me an industry-standard assessment of this script, please focus on the areas to improve in it and be as specific as possible.

Based on the script "Freshbloom" by Anthony Cawood, here is an industry-standard assessment with a focus on areas for improvement:

Strengths of the Script:

Concept: The script presents an intriguing and unique concept. The presence of 'TODAY' badges and the interaction between characters around this concept are engaging and thought-provoking.

Character Development: The characters, particularly Travis and Kira, are well-established with distinct personalities and emotional depth.

Dialogue: The dialogue is natural and flows well, contributing to character development and advancing the plot.

Areas for Improvement:
Scene Descriptions: While the descriptions set the scene, they could be more vivid and detailed to enhance visual imagery. For example, more descriptive language could be used to paint a clearer picture of the urban park and the emotions it evokes.

Pacing and Structure: The script would benefit from a more defined structure, particularly in its pacing. Some scenes may require tightening to maintain momentum and keep the audience engaged.

Character Backstories: While the characters are interesting, their backstories and motivations could be further developed. This would add depth to their interactions and decisions, especially regarding the significance of the 'TODAY' badges.

Conflict and Stakes: The script could amplify the central conflict and raise the stakes to create more tension and investment in the outcome. It's crucial for the audience to understand the implications and consequences associated with the badges.

Climactic Moments and Resolution: The script could benefit from a more impactful climax and resolution. Ensuring that these moments are emotionally resonant and provide closure to the story�s thematic elements would strengthen the overall narrative.

Additional Suggestions:
Consider adding more subtext in the dialogue to reveal characters� internal struggles and histories indirectly.
Introduce additional plot elements or twists that align with the central theme to keep the narrative dynamic and unpredictable.
Explore the broader world or society in which this story takes place to give context to the significance of the 'TODAY' badges.

Overall, "Freshbloom" has a compelling premise and strong character interactions. With refinements in scene descriptions, pacing, character depth, and the development of conflict and resolution, it has the potential to be a highly engaging and thought-provoking piece.


The feedback is very surfacy, and despite me asking for specifics I don't really get any... better feedback from SS imho

Ant, that critique, like you say is very generic.
You could have a better climax, you could consider more subtext, you'd probably benefit from amplifying this or that. There are no specifics, and no examples. It just basically says: Good job, buddy! But always room for improvement.

AJR, do you actually know Scott Mednick endorses this? Anyone can type in someone's credentials.

Perhaps this is the way of the future if badly written scripts need to pass AI evaluations before they will get properly read by Production Companies and they're going to have their go-to place of which you must pass muster first.

I'd be interested to see an evaluation of a badly written script - with mistakes galore.

I got into an 'argument' with ChatGPT the other day. I thought from a purely analytical level it could answer a word usage/grammar question. I knew instinctively what the correct usage was so I didn't go with it's automatic response.

I think I posted this before but I find it amusing so will post again:

User
Him and Paul are going to be fighting over those top leading man roles for the next couple of decades.

Is this grammatically correct?

ChatGPT
Yes, your sentence is grammatically correct. However, for clarity, you might consider adding a comma after "Him" to make it "Him, and Paul are going to be fighting over those top leading man roles for the next couple of decades."


User
Is it not He and Paul are going...?

ChatGPT
You're correct. The grammatically correct form is "He and Paul are going to be fighting over those top leading man roles for the next couple of decades." Thank you for pointing that out.

User
Well which is it, he or him?

ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. The correct usage is "He and Paul are going to be fighting over those top leading man roles for the next couple of decades." "He" is the subject pronoun used when the person is the subject of the sentence.


User
Glad you learned something.

ChatGPT
As a machine learning model, I don't learn in the traditional sense, but I'm here to provide information and assistance. If you have any more questions or if there's anything else I can help you with, feel free to let me know!

Is this conversation helpful so far?

Message ChatGPT…

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information.

Yes, I will.  

I asked ChatGPT to read one of my shorts once, and it basically told me I was great. I immediately became suspicious and distrusted it. Now, I'm in a different position. Two of my go-to people for input are busy doing completely different things, so I have no one to ask for feedback. I might give this a try again because otherwise, I'm just operating in a vacuum, totally clueless.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear I asked ChatGPT to read one of my shorts once, and it basically told me I was great. I immediately became suspicious and distrusted it. Now, I'm in a different position. Two of my go-to people for input are busy doing completely different things, so I have no one to ask for feedback. I might give this a try again because otherwise, I'm just operating in a vacuum, totally clueless.

I gather you don't want to put the script up for feedback on SS and are keeping it on the down low?

[quote=

I'd be interested to see an evaluation of a badly written script - with mistakes galore.


[/quote]

Maybe I could submit something. I have a few that would meet this qualifier.  

You don't qualify, Kathy.
You're too good a good writer and have the mug to prove it.  

I think we'd have to concoct something with all the typical Newb mistakes and a really bad plot to boot; see how glowing a review it gives that.

Quoted from LC You don't qualify, Kathy. You're too good a good writer and have the mug to prove it.   I think we'd have to concoct something with all the typical Newb mistakes and a really bad plot to boot; see how glowing a review it gives that.

What a scathingly awesome idea!  Let’s do it!

Quoted from LC I gather you don't want to put the script up for feedback on SS and are keeping it on the down low?

I think I did put it here sometime last spring or summer. It was when I posted a bunch of shorts in a short amount of time. Don't remember which script it was though.

I posted a thread or two about the AI script reading services.

Initially I was impressed, but that was more about the fact that the program can actually follow along with a story and summarise it accurately, and — not unlike grammarly — is good with grammar issues. It also seems able to identify pacing issues and plot threads that are resolved or unresolved. Which is genuinely impressive for AI.

The fundamental issue IMO is that it cannot really identify whether a writer is good. By which I mean, any amateur can write a script that is technically correct and follows a 3 act structure (especially if they’re a stickler like with the Save The Cat formula). Bad writers are formulaic and AI seems to actually like formula.

It has no sense of a writer’s voice because it would need to be able understand dynamically how the word usage, language, creative choices etc all tie together into something more nebulous that AI doesn’t yet grasp. At least a paid human reader can tell you “hey this script might not be perfect but there’s something about your voice that is compelling”.

Quoted from ajr Hi, all - Anyone have experience with this? Tells you it's "free", and spits out coverage within minutes (which it does)/ So the "free" is "what works". And it's pretty accurate. Honestly, I was shocked. Everything else - synopsis, how to improve, budget, casting suggestions, and score per category, etc. are $45 per script. It's not a lot of money... but I'd rather put that toward film festivals for my short film... unless a good score on this site is the shyte for producers and financiers. Any other experiences? Thanks, AJR

I was quite busy automatically criticising this.
I'm curious AJR what shocked you by way of accuracy or anything else?  And what impressed you?

I swear you are all leading me down the road of perdition with all this AI stuff.  But not being one with any fortitude to resist temptation, I tried the "free" version of a script review.  Of course, it only gives you a glimpse and then teases you with revealing the rest of its "thoughts" for a fee, but nonetheless, here is what it said about my script, "With Love, From Romance"

Plot Assessment and Enhancement
What is working well:

- The concept of the story revolving around the town named "Romance" and its associated legend about a lost wedding ring is intriguing. This provides a nice romantic backdrop.

- The meet-cute between the main characters Avery and Bryce via her getting a speeding ticket is cute and entertaining. Their banter and slowly developing connection is enjoyable.

- The mystery surrounding the lost ring and Avery uncovering clues about it keeps the reader engaged. The reveal of the ring's location in the dog's locket is a nice surprise.

- The incorporation of historical elements like the World War I soldier Patrick and his fiancée Emma into the town's backstory gives depth. The connection to Bryce's Aunt Sue is also nice.

- The ending with Avery and Bryce getting married on Valentine's Day, along with the gift of a new puppy named Chroi, ties the story together nicely.

Pretty uncanny. Of course I'm tempted to pony up the extra dollars to see what the machine "thinks" about my work. In addition to being extra creepy, this AI thing is actually addicting, and that in itself is creepy.  Anyway, I'll think about whether I want to pay the $45.00 to hear its "opinion".  What I'm also thinking is that this whole thing could make a great short about gullible writers getting sucked into the compelling vortex of AI gratification.  Possibly coming soon to an OWC near you.  

Yep, AI is definitely addictive