Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > General > Sites, Services, Software, & Supplies
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-22-2012, 03:14 PM   #41
F.Scott.Frazier
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Default Re: Spec Scout

If you're as pro-writer as you say you are, does that mean you will remove any coverage and scores from your site when requested by the writer?
F.Scott.Frazier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 03:36 PM   #42
jscoggins
User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 48
Default Re: Spec Scout

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcgary View Post
Jason, I have no doubt your intention is truly, completely pro-writer. In that spirit, I encourage you to hide any script's score under a certain threshold -- say, 70.

That way, you can bang the drum for scripts that score well and that your three highly-trained readers give high marks to, but can't do any damage to scripts that your three readers may not dig for one reason or another.
Thanks for saying that, jcgary.

We'd previously considered setting a cutoff for displaying scores. (The proper cutoff is probably 60, not 70, fwiw.) It's probably worth re-visiting, and I appreciate the opportunity to focus group the question here. So here's the core question, as I see it:

- Would suppressing scores below a certain threshold unfairly lump promising scripts (i.e., those that just require a minor revision to clear the threshold) with scripts that weren't ready to go to market in the first place (i.e., those that need a major revision to clear the threshold)?

My worry is that if we suppress scores below 60.0, then a script that has real potential might not get the opportunity to be seen by producers willing to develop it further with the writer. I can think of an example off the top of my head. The script went out wide and had a great commercial concept. It didn't sell initially, but a month or so later a producer came aboard and they're working on a new draft.

Each of the three readers who covered it had the same reservations about it -- two gave it a Pass, one gave it a Consider, and the score was in the mid-50's. As a test of our system, we had a fourth reader cover it, and that reader gave it a Pass as well (the score wasn't affected much, since all four readers' assessments were more or less aligned).

So that script needed a rewrite, by definition of our rubric and also as evidenced by real-world experience -- I happen to know that the producer specifically came aboard to supervise the next draft and plans take it back in to his home studio when it's ready. Yet to the extent Spec Scout might be able to influence a situation like this, if scores were suppressed, we might actually hurt the script's chances, since we'll have effectively condemned it with some sort of "Score Doesn't Qualify" label.

Thoughts?
__________________
Jason Scoggins

http://www.specscout.com

or for that matter

http://www.scogginsreport.com
jscoggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:05 PM   #43
Kremlin
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 45
Default Re: Spec Scout

It's a fair point, but what if you treated scripts that fail to meet the minimum threshold the same way you do those that haven't been covered yet? Leave the score blank as if it hasn't been read. That way there's no effect on the writer, and an exec who stumbles across the script reads it with an open mind...unaware of any previous reservations a reader may have had.
Kremlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:10 PM   #44
F.Scott.Frazier
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Default Re: Spec Scout

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."
F.Scott.Frazier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:34 PM   #45
jcgary
Member
 
jcgary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Spec Scout

Quote:
Originally Posted by jscoggins View Post
Would suppressing scores below a certain threshold unfairly lump promising scripts (i.e., those that just require a minor revision to clear the threshold) with scripts that weren't ready to go to market in the first place (i.e., those that need a major revision to clear the threshold)?
That's why you'd want to keep the threshold high enough so that anything that doesn't have a score and coverage wouldn't be assumed to be bad, but rather just not "holy sht this is effing brilliant."

60 would qualify as way too low. 70 is too low.

Solutions:

1) only show coverage and scores for scripts without producers.

2) only show coverage and scores for the top 20 or 30 scripts.


There's no reason to provide information about scripts that already have producers and are already set up. If they go into turnaround, it's not like it's all that difficult for another producer or studio to just READ THE FVKCING SCRIPT themselves.

There's no reason to show negative coverage or low scores. None. All it'll do is prevent people from reading material, and that's not a good thing.

Make people form their own opinion about material.
jcgary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:44 PM   #46
Bitter Script Reader
User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 138
Default Re: Spec Scout

Quote:
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.
Bitter Script Reader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:46 PM   #47
jscoggins
User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 48
Default Re: Spec Scout

Quote:
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
jscoggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 04:53 PM   #48
emily blake
Member
 
emily blake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,679
Default 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
emily blake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 05:11 PM   #49
F.Scott.Frazier
User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Default 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.
F.Scott.Frazier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2012, 05:12 PM   #50
michaelb
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 911
Default Re: Spec Scout

Quote:
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
michaelb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker