All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
They are probably harder to write, generally speaking.
I suppose it's bound to be less than other categories because you can have a good story that's unoriginal and a good story that's original...but you almost definitely need a good plot and characters in both scripts...so there's bound to be a bias in favour of other measures.
I think...Although that's related to the same point I made earlier.
Let's try it from another angle:
You can have a relatively good story with only plot (Harry Potter). You can have a relatively good story with only characterisation (Richard Linklater films) You can never have a good story with only originality, or theme, or concept....they are added extras.
It's also heavily dependant on how you define originality, I suppose.
Don't' disagree. I just assumed that originality was one of those critical elements. i.e., doesn't make the script by itself - but an essential ingredient. Guess I wouldn't have been surprised if if was a mid-point rating. I was surprised that it was dead last in most cases
The originality aspect makes sense. There’s only, what, seven stories in the world? (or something like that) and everything you see is a spin of something. What takes you through TV show or film is the characters. If you love the characters, if you can’t wait to see how they deal with the next situation, you will forgive lack of originality as long as it isn’t a blatant rip-off.
Another aspect of the report which surprised me was Voice Over. We are told again and again not to use VO unless absolutely necessary but it looks like script readers don’t score against it if they are in the script.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Don't' disagree. I just assumed that originality was one of those critical elements. i.e., doesn't make the script by itself - but an essential ingredient. Guess I wouldn't have been surprised if if was a mid-point rating. I was surprised that it was dead last in most cases
You have to remember these are largely amateur scripts.
The best amateur scripts are those that most closely resemble professional scripts. A mediocre pro script is a lot higher in quality than 99.9% of amateur scripts.
At amateur level a writer who can plot a story, structure it well, have a style and a voice is a rare beast. Those that do stand out from the crowd.
At professional level the standard of writing is more homogenised and there is a floor to the level of the writing. Any pro script can be expected to be well structured, with cohesive plot and characters.
When looking to differentiate between pro scripts you are looking at marketability: Genre/Concept/USP etc the writing standard is a given. Some writers are clearly still better than others but there is a certain standard that's near objectively guaranteed.
It's like when you walk in a bookstore. You have an expectation that every novel is written to a professional standard. That it is structured professionally, that the plot makes sense with few or no plot-holes etc. You often make your choice based on genre and the blurb on the back of the book: Concept.
That's why you have to be very careful with this info.
You have to remember these are largely amateur scripts.
The best amateur scripts are those that most closely resemble professional scripts. A mediocre pro script is a lot higher in quality than 99.9% of amateur scripts.
At amateur level a writer who can plot a story, structure it well, have a style and a voice is a rare beast. Those that do stand out from the crowd.
At professional level the standard of writing is more homogenised and there is a floor to the level of the writing. Any pro script can be expected to be well structured, with cohesive plot and characters.
When looking to differentiate between pro scripts you are looking at marketability: Genre/Concept/USP etc the writing standard is a given. Some writers are clearly still better than others but there is a certain standard that's near objectively guaranteed.
It's like when you walk in a bookstore. You have an expectation that every novel is written to a professional standard. That it is structured professionally, that the plot makes sense with few or no plot-holes etc. You often make your choice based on genre and the blurb on the back of the book: Concept.
That's why you have to be very careful with this info.
You are making a big assumption here that all the script readers only score amateur scripts, most amateur scripts are terrible and therefore lower their standard accordingly. They have no idea if the script they are scoring is professional or amateur. All are scored anonymously. Some of these readers work for production companies.
Take the Wescreenplay Contest for example. The Script Reader for my feature has an MFA in Screenwriting and has provided pilot and feature film script coverage for Valhalla Entertainment and Blumhouse Productions; including notes on novels, web series, graphic novels and plays. They are currently writing for production companies working with Lifetime and Hallmark channels.
This guy gave me 7.5 out of 10, A consider and I'm now through to the quarterfinals. You may think that's bull and they are making up their credentials but I don't. I know quite a few script readers and they are more than qualified, plus they do work for competitions, publishers, production companies and deal with professional as well as amateur/independent work.
Sure, some of the less prestigious competitions may employ anyone who can read but Stephen picked the top competitions to base his analysis on.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
Another aspect of the report which surprised me was Voice Over. We are told again and again not to use VO unless absolutely necessary but it looks like script readers don’t score against it if they are in the script.
This isn't surprising, really. "Gurus" warn against using V.O. because many new writers use it badly. It's either inconsistent or goes over the top, it's often weak, and it's usually a band-aid solution to a problem. But V.O. is a legitimate screenwriting device and absolutely should be used when the story calls for it, or when the writer frames the story in a way that demands it.
The thing is, V.O. is used for things like television inserts, phone conversations, everywhere where the actor is speaking from a different location. The report doesn't seem to differentiate between that and narration. It seems that they simply did a search for V.O. in each script and compared the count with the overall rating the script got.
And that is one of the dangers of a report like this drawing conclusions for you. Right in the summary, they state using voiceover is A-OK, and while they're right, there's a huge caveat to that and their conclusion is based on flawed data.
And that is one of the dangers of a report like this drawing conclusions for you. Right in the summary, they state using voiceover is A-OK, and while they're right, there's a huge caveat to that and their conclusion is based on flawed data.
I do agree, there are always dangers drawing conclusions from any report. This is why I pay little attention to blogs like, "The 5 things that are killing your script on page 1!" All I take from this is V.O. isn't automatically penalised by scorers, when there are those that claim (without any evidence to back it up) that VO is always a no-no.
However, I'm not about to write a script now with huge rafts of exposition told in V.O. as a shortcut. But if V.O. felt completely right for an element of my story I will use it, just like I did before the report.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
If you’re interested in some statistics on how screenplays are being read and rated, this guy has quite an extensive report with some interesting findings! Haven’t gotten through it yet, but he discusses a lot of trends that work in screenplays and backs it up with data! At least that is what I’m getting on the surface. Haven’t dug very deep to truly vouch for this, but figured I could share it anyways!
I believe it’s like any of the other subjective things in life - luck of the draw. Who you draw. You may draw a really compentent reader or a poor one (They range just as writers do) You may draw a person who is having a bad day - shit happens. You may draw somebody who just isn’t into your genre or writing style. (I’ve seen that happened with a person who got written notes.) You may draw somebody who gets yours after reading a hundred other scripts and is burnt out.
I’lol give you my take. Last year I enter my script “7 days in La Suerte” in four contest. It made the finals in two and in the email I received from Nichols it said it’s scores put it in the top twenty percent. The professional coverage I got gave it a strongly consider.
So I put it in the forth contest. IT never made it out of the box.
Also I’m curious - I heard the writer say “professional” writers scripts are better then 99.9% of the amateurs. I would consider myself in the latter class. But just what is a “professional” - somebody who does it for money? We all try to do it for money. Don’t see any MLSW - Major league of professional; screenwriters.
To me it’s just an ego thing.
I play a lot of poker. I’ve played against some big name “pros’ and held my own consistently, but consider myself an amateur.
When I was very young an elder gentlemen told me never judge a man’s abilities by the titles he bestows upon himself.
I believe it’s like any of the other subjective things in life - luck of the draw. Who you draw. You may draw a really compentent reader or a poor one (They range just as writers do) You may draw a person who is having a bad day - shit happens. You may draw somebody who just isn’t into your genre or writing style. (I’ve seen that happened with a person who got written notes.) You may draw somebody who gets yours after reading a hundred other scripts and is burnt out.
I’lol give you my take. Last year I enter my script “7 days in La Suerte” in four contest. It made the finals in two and in the email I received from Nichols it said it’s scores put it in the top twenty percent. The professional coverage I got gave it a strongly consider.
So I put it in the forth contest. IT never made it out of the box.
Also I’m curious - I heard the writer say “professional” writers scripts are better then 99.9% of the amateurs. I would consider myself in the latter class. But just what is a “professional” - somebody who does it for money? We all try to do it for money. Don’t see any MLSW - Major league of professional; screenwriters.
To me it’s just an ego thing.
I play a lot of poker. I’ve played against some big name “pros’ and held my own consistently, but consider myself an amateur.
When I was very young an elder gentlemen told me never judge a man’s abilities by the titles he bestows upon himself.
Just my opinion.
Also different tastes for different contests. e.g., I have scripts that do well in PAGE that bomn in Nicholls. etc.
I believe it’s like any of the other subjective things in life - luck of the draw. Who you draw. You may draw a really compentent reader or a poor one (They range just as writers do) You may draw a person who is having a bad day - shit happens. You may draw somebody who just isn’t into your genre or writing style. (I’ve seen that happened with a person who got written notes.) You may draw somebody who gets yours after reading a hundred other scripts and is burnt out.
I’lol give you my take. Last year I enter my script “7 days in La Suerte” in four contest. It made the finals in two and in the email I received from Nichols it said it’s scores put it in the top twenty percent. The professional coverage I got gave it a strongly consider.
So I put it in the forth contest. IT never made it out of the box.
Also I’m curious - I heard the writer say “professional” writers scripts are better then 99.9% of the amateurs. I would consider myself in the latter class. But just what is a “professional” - somebody who does it for money? We all try to do it for money. Don’t see any MLSW - Major league of professional; screenwriters.
To me it’s just an ego thing.
I play a lot of poker. I’ve played against some big name “pros’ and held my own consistently, but consider myself an amateur.
When I was very young an elder gentlemen told me never judge a man’s abilities by the titles he bestows upon himself.
Just my opinion.
A professional is someone who makes enough money from it to live.
It usually goes hand in hand with a certain level of quality. Although what that quality is is somewhat variable.
I was in the same class at schools as Jules 'the kid' Gardner who is a pro poker player. He is a professional gambler because he's made millions from it and it's his livelihood.
Yeah, for me a professional writer is someone whose actual day job is writing and earns enough from it to pay the bills. You don't have to be a millionaire or have a long list of famous scripts under your belt to be a pro though and most are not.
Until that day happens I consider myself an amateur and treat all this as a hobby.
For more of my scripts, stories, produced movies and the ocassional blog, check out my new website. CLICK
A writer can make anyone in the industry do anything with what they write. It’s that simple. If you write something amazing, everyone will line up to produce it and work with you. I have personally had this happen more than once and all professional writers had the same experience: they wrote something and what they wrote forced people around them to do what they want. Get signed by an agent, get paid for a script, get hired on a writing staff, get produced—–all of it comes from what you write. You have all the power in Hollywood. If you write something special, you can make anyone in town say yes. It’s that simple.
I only just now got around to this thread, and this immediately caught my attention. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head.
You'll often hear varying complaints from writers who have yet to find success. "In Hollywood, it's who you know." Or, "They didn't recognize the brilliance of my script." Or any number of lame-o excuses. But the simple truth is that a great script sells itself.
Yes, you have to put it out there, submit it to agents or into competitions. No one's going to recognize its greatness if you don't submit it. It's not going to magically find its way from your desk into a reader's lap. It's not going make a contract appear in your mailbox by osmosis. It's not going to inflate your bank account by crossing its arms and nodding like I Dream of Jeannie.
But if you've written a great script, and you put that script out there to be discovered, it will be discovered. Because once you cut through all the so-called Hollywood elitism and studio red tape and what-not, there is one thing that everyone is Hollywood is looking for, be they an agent, a director, a producer, an FX artist or a lowly gaffer: a great script that they can turn into a great movie.
Now, what becomes of that script after it's been bought is usually out of your hands, unless you were fortunate enough to be kept on for rewrites. But I'm not going to go into that (touchy subject, sorry). Suffice to say that there are a lot of producers and development execs in Hollywood who insist on fixing shit that ain't broke. Call it an occupational hazard we face as writers. But regardless of what happens during development, it's not going to change that you wrote a great script. And people in the biz who know what from what are going to recognize that.
But I digress. The point is, write a great script, then put that script out there to be seen. If it's great script, it will find its way into the right hands. If it doesn't, then it probably wasn't a great script.
Just wanted to jump in here and make sure that you all know that Lon's quote of me is actually a quote I posted from a BlueCat article. Not a quote by me personally. That's all. Carry on.