Spec Scout

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Spec Scout

    Originally posted by F.Scott.Frazier View Post
    As I'll take that silence to assume the answer is "No" I have a few follow-up questions:

    1) Who are your readers and what is their experience and expertise within the industry?

    2) Are your readers employed at any other companies within the industry?

    3) Are your readers also screenwriters, and are their scripts reviewed on the site?

    4) Why is there a need to review scripts that have already been optioned / sold / set-up / in development, if the goal is champion unknown and overlooked scripts and writers?

    I'm sure some more questions will come to me, but right now I'm basking in the glow of professionalism that is your coverage for my script that lists SIMILAR FILMS as: "Every military movie ever."
    Just to add to these, since the reader are apparently being asked to provide full coverage reports, I'm curious if they're being compensated on a par with the current agency/prod co rates.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Spec Scout

      Originally posted by F.Scott.Frazier View Post
      As I'll take that silence to assume the answer is "No" I have a few follow-up questions:

      1) Who are your readers and what is their experience and expertise within the industry?

      2) Are your readers employed at any other companies within the industry?

      3) Are your readers also screenwriters, and are their scripts reviewed on the site?

      4) Why is there a need to review scripts that have already been optioned / sold / set-up / in development, if the goal is champion unknown and overlooked scripts and writers?

      I'm sure some more questions will come to me, but right now I'm basking in the glow of professionalism that is your coverage for my script that lists SIMILAR FILMS as: "Every military movie ever."
      My silence was due to my dismay at reading one of the coverages on one of your scripts, Scott. It was by a reader who we fired for consistently treating coverage as an opportunity to be clever, as in that "similar films" crack and in several other places. I thought we'd been thorough enough when we went through and reviewed that reader's coverage, but that one slipped past. I have deleted it and put the script back in the queue for a new set by one of our current readers. I'm embarrassed, and I hope you'll accept my personal apology.

      The answer to your first question is that, as in the above example, we will review any coverage in the system upon request by the writer or the writer's reps. We won't guarantee to remove or edit them simply because the writers or reps disagree with the assessment, but we will act appropriately when the coverage doesn't map to our rubric, the scores aren't supported by the comments, the comments aren't supported with specific examples in the script, or, as in this case, otherwise breaks our rules.

      Here are the answers to your follow up questions:
      1. From our site: "Our evaluation team is comprised of a dozen seasoned readers, each of whom has been exposed to countless produced and unproduced screenplays through previous experience writing coverage in development, at agencies and management companies, and in other professional environments. Furthermore, each reader whose coverage appears in Spec Scout's database has undergone our thorough feature analysis training program to ensure the highest quality and consistency throughout our library."

      I realize that our failure to catch that one bad coverage out of three on your script raises a yellow flag (at least) about that last sentence, but hopefully you'll take my word that this situation has triggered a systematic coverage review. There are thousands of individual coverages in our system, but we'll work through them all again and make sure this isn't a widespread issue.

      2. Yes.

      3. None of our current readers are screenwriters, but a few who have read for us in the past have been, yes. None of their scripts are on the site, no.

      4. The way we've chosen to champion unknown and overlooked scripts and writers is to use the same system to rate scripts that have found a home as the ones that are still available. Without the baseline provided by the scores of the scripts that have been set up or are otherwise notable (for example, scripts that have made it onto the Black List or the Hit List), the scores of the available material wouldn't have enough context to be useful.
      Jason Scoggins

      http://www.specscout.com

      or for that matter

      http://www.scogginsreport.com

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Spec Scout

        Is there a way that I could see coverage for my own script without joining the site?

        Or that I can have it removed altogther? But really, can I at least see what's been posted beyond the sample coverage?
        Chicks Who Script podcast

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Spec Scout

          Apology accepted.

          However, I still don't understand why I as the writer, as a creator of content, can not opt of the process. I'm not saying take down scores I don't agree with, I'm saying I don't want any coverage of anything I've ever written to ever appear on the site ever. I have managers and agents who have no trouble getting my scripts read around town, and if I miss out on a few reads because I'm not affiliated with your site, so be it.

          If you are pro-writer, surely this is not an unreasonable request.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Spec Scout

            Originally posted by jscoggins View Post
            My silence was due to my dismay at reading one of the coverages on one of your scripts, Scott. It was by a reader who we fired for consistently treating coverage as an opportunity to be clever, as in that "similar films" crack and in several other places. I thought we'd been thorough enough when we went through and reviewed that reader's coverage, but that one slipped past. I have deleted it and put the script back in the queue for a new set by one of our current readers. I'm embarrassed, and I hope you'll accept my personal apology.

            The answer to your first question is that, as in the above example, we will review any coverage in the system upon request by the writer or the writer's reps. We won't guarantee to remove or edit them simply because the writers or reps disagree with the assessment, but we will act appropriately when the coverage doesn't map to our rubric, the scores aren't supported by the comments, the comments aren't supported with specific examples in the script, or, as in this case, otherwise breaks our rules.

            Here are the answers to your follow up questions:
            1. From our site: "Our evaluation team is comprised of a dozen seasoned readers, each of whom has been exposed to countless produced and unproduced screenplays through previous experience writing coverage in development, at agencies and management companies, and in other professional environments. Furthermore, each reader whose coverage appears in Spec Scout's database has undergone our thorough feature analysis training program to ensure the highest quality and consistency throughout our library."

            I realize that our failure to catch that one bad coverage out of three on your script raises a yellow flag (at least) about that last sentence, but hopefully you'll take my word that this situation has triggered a systematic coverage review. There are thousands of individual coverages in our system, but we'll work through them all again and make sure this isn't a widespread issue.

            2. Yes.

            3. None of our current readers are screenwriters, but a few who have read for us in the past have been, yes. None of their scripts are on the site, no.

            4. The way we've chosen to champion unknown and overlooked scripts and writers is to use the same system to rate scripts that have found a home as the ones that are still available. Without the baseline provided by the scores of the scripts that have been set up or are otherwise notable (for example, scripts that have made it onto the Black List or the Hit List), the scores of the available material wouldn't have enough context to be useful.
            I have a major problem with this. I don't want any of my clients scripts being covered on some website, nor do my clients. And if any of us requested it be taken down, the only acceptable answer in my books is "yes, right way". (Not to mention it shouldn't be posted in the first place).

            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.

            If a spec I went out with last week or last year was posted on the site, I can't imagine any of my clients lawyers not sending off some C&D letters immediately.

            Now, if the entire site was based towards amateur scripts, then I think it could be a great resource, just like I think the black list website is. But posting coverage for scripts that are going out to buyers/producers? No.

            Best,

            MB
            twitter.com/mbotti

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Spec Scout

              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.
              Jason Scoggins

              http://www.specscout.com

              or for that matter

              http://www.scogginsreport.com

              Comment


              • #52
                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.
                http://www.pjmcilvaine.com/

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Spec Scout

                  Originally posted by jscoggins View Post
                  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)
                  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)"

                  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...
                  twitter.com/mbotti

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Spec Scout

                    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.
                    Jason Scoggins

                    http://www.specscout.com

                    or for that matter

                    http://www.scogginsreport.com

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Spec Scout

                      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?
                      Jason Scoggins

                      http://www.specscout.com

                      or for that matter

                      http://www.scogginsreport.com

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Spec Scout

                        Originally posted by LIMAMA View Post
                        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.
                        Jason Scoggins

                        http://www.specscout.com

                        or for that matter

                        http://www.scogginsreport.com

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          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.
                          Chicks Who Script podcast

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Spec Scout

                            Michael, which of the script listed were pretty bad? Just curious.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              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.
                              Jason Scoggins

                              http://www.specscout.com

                              or for that matter

                              http://www.scogginsreport.com

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Spec Scout

                                Originally posted by jscoggins View Post
                                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
                                twitter.com/mbotti

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X