Done Deal Pro Forums

Done Deal Pro Forums (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/index.php)
-   Sites, Services, Software, & Supplies (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   Spec Scout (http://messageboard.donedealpro.com/boards/showthread.php?t=70225)

jscoggins 12-22-2012 05:18 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

60 would qualify as way too low. 70 is too low.
Just to go off on a tangent for a minute, the above is part of the problem here, I think. This makes it seem like scripts with scores in the 50's are shitty, but they're not -- they're merely "fine," which means they have room for improvement, certainly, but they're not bad.

The truth is that our scores break down like this:
- a score in the 60's is quite good
- a score in the 70's is great
- a score in the 80's is phenomenal
- there are no scores in the 90's so far

I don't know the exact percentages of the spec market scripts in each of those ranges, but I know it's a bell curve: A few in the 80's, a small chunk in the 70's and the bulk in the 50's and 60's.

As you might expect, the scores of the scripts we're being submitted by aspiring writers are also a bell curve, but it's shifted to the left of the scale:
- a few in the 70s,
- a small chunk in the 60's
- the bulk in the 40's and 50's

The above dynamic is why we've set the bar for inclusion in the database for our paid submissions at 60.0.

LIMAMA 12-22-2012 05:27 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Botti and Scott make very good points. The way Spec Scout is set up reminds me of a similar site back in the late 90's or so called GO, if my memory serves me. The website posted real time, online coverages of specs hitting the market. It was touted as the next great thing. Well, there was a hue and cry from agents (managers weren't so big back then) about potential deals being scutttled since some of the coverages weren't flattering. Within a week the site was shuttered, never to return.

michaelb 12-22-2012 05:29 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jscoggins (Post 846274)
Just to go off on a tangent for a minute, the above is part of the problem here, I think. This makes it seem like scripts with scores in the 50's are shitty, but they're not -- they're merely "fine," which means they have room for improvement, certainly, but they're not bad.

The truth is that our scores break down like this:
- a score in the 60's is quite good
- a score in the 70's is great
- a score in the 80's is phenomenal
- there are no scores in the 90's so far

I don't know the exact percentages of the spec market scripts in each of those ranges, but I know it's a bell curve: A few in the 80's, a small chunk in the 70's and the bulk in the 50's and 60's.

As you might expect, the scores of the scripts we're being submitted by aspiring writers are also a bell curve, but it's shifted to the left of the scale:
- a few in the 70s,
- a small chunk in the 60's
- the bulk in the 40's and 50's

The above dynamic is why we've set the bar for inclusion in the database for our paid submissions at 60.0.

Wait, so all these are "phenomenal" scripts?


:Week 14, by Ron Shelton (89.7)
Rocketsí Red Glare, by Ken Nolan (87.8)
How to Catch a Monster, by Ryan Gosling (84.7)
Blown, by Jesse Wheeler (83.8)
Monster Problems, by Brian Duffield (83.3)
Somacell, by Ashleigh Powell (82.4)
Throttle, by John W. Richardson & Chris Roach (82.4)
Murder City, by Will Wimmons (82.3)
Everybody Wants Head, by Peter Hoare & Chris Lilli (81.8)
White House Down, by James Vanderbilt (80.9)"

Would anyone in the business say that? Some of these are actually pretty bad, can't even get agents on board. Some are actually considered great, like White House Down, but some of these.... eh.

Granted, it's all subjective, but I think it further highlights why people wouldn't want their scripts publicly reviewed by this system...

jscoggins 12-22-2012 05:32 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

So far, the readers scores, have proven to be way off. For example..

"So thanks to the way voting works for those lists, there’s no way we can predict their top 10′s. We’re going out on a limb, though, and predicting that at least 8 of our Top 10 of 2012 will show up on both lists.

Without further ado, here are Spec Scout’s “Top 10 Specs of 2012.” The number next to the title is the Spec Scout Score, which is on a scale of 1 to 100, the higher the better. Representation information is available on the site.

Week 14, by Ron Shelton (89.7)
Rockets’ Red Glare, by Ken Nolan (87.8)
How to Catch a Monster, by Ryan Gosling (84.7)
Blown, by Jesse Wheeler (83.8)
Monster Problems, by Brian Duffield (83.3)
Somacell, by Ashleigh Powell (82.4)
Throttle, by John W. Richardson & Chris Roach (82.4)
Murder City, by Will Wimmons (82.3)
Everybody Wants Head, by Peter Hoare & Chris Lilli (81.8)
White House Down, by James Vanderbilt (80.9)"

While White House Down was not eligible for the black list, I won't hold that against you. That being said, you went 2 for 9. (taking WHD out of the equation). That's not very encouraging that these "readers" have the pulse of Hollywood in my book.
Yeah, serves me right for getting cute with the headline of that email ("2012 Black List Predictions") -- I knew it would grab people's attention but the limb I went out on broke, as Franklin himself tweeted. I forgot to consider the fact that about half of the Black List is non-specs.

I would have been fine if I'd stuck to the Hit List, which like Spec Scout is specs only. We went 8 for 10 with that list.

jscoggins 12-22-2012 05:42 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

Would anyone in the business say that? Some of these are actually pretty bad, can't even get agents on board. Some are actually considered great, like White House Down, but some of these...eh.

Granted, it's all subjective, but I think it further highlights why people wouldn't want their scripts publicly reviewed by this system...
So now the measure of quality is whether a script has an agent on board? What about Christmas vs Hanukkah?

jscoggins 12-22-2012 05:43 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by LIMAMA (Post 846276)
Botti and Scott make very good points. The way Spec Scout is set up reminds me of a similar site back in the late 90's or so called GO, if my memory serves me. The website posted real time, online coverages of specs hitting the market. It was touted as the next great thing. Well, there was a hue and cry from agents (managers weren't so big back then) about potential deals being scutttled since some of the coverages weren't flattering. Within a week the site was shuttered, never to return.

If that was what we're doing, I'd agree with you. But that's not what we're doing.

emily blake 12-22-2012 05:48 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Maybe you missed my question. If I can't get the listing removed, is there a way for me to see my own coverage without paying for a membership? I see no way to do that on the site. I would like to at the very least know what's being said about my script on this site, since it's easily accessible to anyone with money.

I don't want you to feel that you are being ganged up on, but these are legitimate concerns.

Storytell 12-22-2012 05:51 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Michael, which of the script listed were pretty bad? Just curious.

jscoggins 12-22-2012 05:56 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
You're right, Scott, it's not an unreasonable request. Nor is jcgary's suggestion to suppress scores below a certain threshold. I don't fully agree with Botti's take (obviously), but it is in the same category as what you've been saying, Scott.

While I've been responding here on DDP, I've been having a simultaneous chat conversation with my partners about each of the points being raised. We'll continue to talk offline and figure out a reasonable response to each (hopefully one cohesive approach that solves both problems) over the next few days.

Thanks very much for the input. I'll pick this up again in a few days.

michaelb 12-22-2012 05:56 PM

Re: Spec Scout
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jscoggins (Post 846281)
So now the measure of quality is whether a script has an agent on board? What about Christmas vs Hanukkah?

Jason,

First, you didn't answer my question.

Not being able to get an agent is a very telling sign.

He never landed one. And it still hasn't sold. I never said it was "phenomenal" though.

How many "phenomenal" scripts hit the market without agents? My guess would be zero...

-MB


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro