Script Coverage: A Few Awful Truths

Screenwriters have funny ideas about readers.  Some view us as malevolent fire-breathing trolls who get out the long knives before turning a page.  The funniest misconception is the equivalent of an urban myth, still circulating among pre-pros, that readers "don't even bother to read the whole thing." 

If only!  Story analysts have to read each script from first page to last, even when it's obvious from Page One that it's a godawful travesty, because - and this is often the dirtiest part of the Dirty Job That Someone Has to Do - we have to write a synopsis.

Reader mean-spiritedness, when it really exists, is largely a reaction to this grunt-work.  There are few things more aggravating to a reader/writer than having to speedily synopsize a poorly plotted piece of work (sci-fi/fantasy specs are the most horrific of these, since trying to understand, let alone explain story developments in an incoherent interplanetary saga can really crash your hard-drive).

Then comes the more involving task of writing comments that annotate the pros and cons of the material, but here's the awful truth that a pre-pro screenwriter ought to know about coverage.  The problem isn't that the reader doesn't read your entire script - he's often the only person who does.  No, the problem is that the executives we work for rarely read the entire coverage.  They may not even read a word of it, before pronouncing your 2-3 years of work to be D.O.A.  Their interest is often entirely predicated on a visual.

Allow me to introduce to you (cue drum roll) the grid.

The grid (aka The Box) is the alpha and omega of script coverage.  Specifics vary, vis-a-vis the terms used on the left-hand side, but this one is typical.  And the arrangement of "X" marks across those lines is sometimes all a buyer needs to look at before dismissing a submission.

To be fair, the 1-2 sentence log-line (summary of the concept and basic story thrust) that appears on the cover sheet with the grid is usually just as important.  Of secondary importance is the Comments Summary (1-2 sentences) that follows the log-line.

I usually cover 8-9 scripts a week (the average is two a day).  How often do marks enter the "Excellent" column?  Maybe once or twice a year.  How often am I X-ing into "Poor?"  At least 2-3 times a week.  About half the spec scripts one reads earn a box score like this:

Now here comes the truly abhorrent truth: the most important line is the first one.  High marks for characterization and dialogue can serve a writer well (i.e. even if the script doesn't sell, the reader may recommend that writer for a studio assignment).  Poor Story/Structure marks can give a buyer pause, and high ones will definitely help; same goes for Setting/Production Values.  But solid "Good" for Premise (aka Story Concept)?  If the log-line appeals, the exec may read the coverage.  She may even read the script. 

This one is a no-brainer, right?  The studio will buy it for a cool million.  Oh, right, I forgot to mention the elements attached: Will Smith and Michael Bay.

Here we enter the adjacent realm of Awful Truths.  I'm stretching a bit to make my point, but even an only-fair Premise can get a movie set up if the team that's attached is hot enough, and the politics and money of it make sense to the studio.  

Generally speaking, though, Story Concept reigns supreme.  In fact - hold onto your 3D glasses - there is an answer to that oft-articulated question known to disgruntled moviegoers exiting theaters in a state of dazed bewilderment: "Who the hell thought that was a movie worth making?"

You see the marks for Story/Structure blasting past the Poor bar?  And all the straight-up Fairs?  Now look at that trail of enthusiastic X's filling up Good and edging toward Excellent... and check out the category under Pass and Consider. 

The studio bought the idea.  The endemic logic, in the studio system, is that everything else can be fixed; throw enough writers and other creative elements at it, and a sow's ear really can become a silk purse.  And that, Grasshopper, is how we ended up with Land of the Lost.

I put this before you by way of advice.  Given that what the buyers want is "the same, only different," you must look at your spec script with the harsh, cold glare of the The Grid's little boxes, and ask: What makes the idea of my movie competitive (i.e. distinct from all the others in its genre)?  And if the story concept itself is not genuinely distinctive, what in the execution - the telling of it - makes it seem unique, and will provide a hook? 

In comedy, concept is vital.  Almost every spec we see each week that's touted as "the next Hangover" (translation: it's a comedy with a bunch of guys in it) misses the point; all of us readers routinely pass on "boys' night out in Vegas" specs.  Hangover was a hit because it had a mystery as its driving motor: What in God's name did we do with the groom? 

In romantic comedy, the execution hook can be what makes the difference between "Bridget Jones" (Who cares?) and Bridget Jones's Diary (i.e. the storytelling device is the thing that provides the extra level of interest).  A good premise, by Grid definition, may also represent an inspired way of telling a familiar story, e.g. the in-development musical Wicked (it's The Wizard of Oz all over again - but from the witch's POV).

Either way, the awful truth about scripts and coverage is that Concept/Premise is often all that matters.  So what's the hook in your movie?  What inventive idea will move those top line marks to the left?  What unique angle on a same-old subject will get your script read by anyone other than, well... me?

Comments

[Natty Light]

This is HIGHLY off the subject but I needed a place to vent seeing that I am surrounded by fellow writers.

(Billy, delete if needed)

Never watched Lost...ever.

As far as I know the island sank and Gilligan and the Skipper showed up in the S.S. Minnow.

It seems as if folks are having a Seinfeld/Sopranos moment. "What just happened?" Trying to read into things for a meaning that more than likely does not exist.

My two cents...and an idea that is probably too (in my mind) logical to make sense...let the writers write the ending of a series in the midst of the show's popularity...then lock it away while things are hot and fresh.

Yes, I understand...things evolve and change...but still...

Pull it out when things begin to wind down.

In my humble opinion ideas tend to get weak and all of these popular series end with a fizzle instead of a bang.

Or worse...try to stretch it out and think they can resurrect the show by....oh say...getting a character pregnant. Always works...right? (no)

As Elton John once sang...I've seen that movie too.

Beginning to think the same about all of this concerning The Office.

Just needed to vent. Thanks!

Carry on...

[E.C. Henry]

Billy,

Of the 8-9 scripts a week you're giving coverage to what's the breakdown of pro screenwriters vs. amateur/students?

Personally I have a lot of respect for script readers. How you guys and galls remain frosty after reading script after script amazes me. I do respect the profession of script readers; it is REAL work.

I think a lot writers' frustration with script readers is how hard it is to get them to admit liking something you've written. From a writer's perspective sometimes it feels like a trip to the denist's office to try to get a script reader to admit that you've written something that that this person actually liked.

I think it's easier to climb Mt. Everest blackwards and blindfolded than to get a "recommend" from a script reader. A writer's quest for approval from a script reader can be likened to a treasure seeker's pursuit of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

And just when you think you, said writer, think you've arrived that pesky leprechaun stands atop the next hill over with a foreboding smile. "Me gold's moved," now says the leprechaun. "So if ye still wants it you're going to have to come over here now to gets it... He-he-he."

My point is: no matter how hard the writer tries to get the gold (which is the script reader's recommend to someone with the power to take your script and make it into a movie) it is NEVER achieved -- no matter how dogged one follows advice given.

Still, it's always good to hear you explain your "mysterious" craft, Billy. I hope this week's 8-9 offerings are all enjoyable for you in some way. Thanks for some insight into your world. It is appreciated.

- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA

P.S. 21 days and counting of consecutive days working. Sigh... Hopefully switching to swing shift will allow for more time for creative writing.

[Trevor]

Seriously Billy, sometimes you get the craziest mother-flippin' comments!

A very insightful article, as usual. Thanks.

[Garner Haines]

To be fair, Bridget Jones's Diary was a successful novel first (in Britain, at least, if not the rest of the world), but lesson taken.

[J]

Both sides of this are frustrating...at least for me.

I've BEEN that reader who has to read redonkulous scripts, cover to cover, and I've also been that person who's been told the concept isn't strong enough...even though everything else is...so good-bye.

Dear lord. Why hasn't Superman fixed this issue already?

[mernitman]

Natty: Never got on the Lost boat (or airplane), myself, so I can't offer an opinion. But thanks for the vent!

EC: The scripts I'm talking about are my average studio workload, not counting the student and consult work I do. Re: your understandable frustration about the submission process (and/or nightmare), I can only note that specs DO occasionally get sold and developed. It happens! And meanwhile, don't ever think that a reader's "recommend" is all it takes; in fact, I've often vouched for scripts that didn't get bought, because the powers-that-be have their own agendas. But that's a whole other... blog post.

Trevor: You gotta love 'em, though, right? And you're welcome.

Garner: You're right about the source material, of course, and I didn't mean to confuse the issue. But I'll wager that even Fielding's book sold more easily because of the "diary" device she used, don't you think?

J: Superman evidently busy trying to not be turned into a dicey new franchise.

[Jonathan Tipton Meyers]

Solid posting Billy. Thank you. The challenge is always to take each piece of information and make it useful and practical. I get the frustration (after no "recommends" but some glowing "considers"). Ultimately though, if you know what the pitcher is throwing, you have a better chance of smacking one out of the park.

[Christian H.]

This should help bring the almost symbiotic relationship between writers and readers.
We both have to "know our shit" or the process stalls. I can say I haven't had as many experiences with readers as writers but writers aren't studying FILM enough.
I've had good fortune with prodco readers but not contest readers.
"Similar but different" means there's not really going to be "new" story from the archetypal view of story.
I've gotten much better at story premises in the last year and am ready to start pitching again.
Though I wouldn't call my innate style "indie" I do like the human interest\sociological view movie as much as the superhero genre.
I've worked on both.

I hope if my writing crosses your desk, it's at least worth reading.

[Joanna Farnsworth]

If I had to do your job, for sure I’d turn into a fire-breathing Troll. And avenge myself by night, by tearing unsuspecting screenwriters to pieces, for forcing me to spend my professional career reading BAD scripts.

Billy, I salute you! For sticking with it day after day, never letting never-ending POOR scripts drive you to distraction.

[Lynnie]

"Set/Prod values". I'm not quite sure what that means from a reader pov...can you help me out?

[The Bitter Script Reader]

I followed the link here from Go into the Story. As a fellow reader I just want to nod my head in agreement.

[mernitman]

Absolutely, Jonathan: Batter up.

Christian: I bet it will be.

Joanna: There's always HOPE (i.e. that you'll read something good). And every now and then - you do!

Lynnie: You could think of it as "the wow factor," i.e. where and when is the thing set (e.g. Pandora v. somebody's basement) and will there be a "big screen" in terms of the script's inherent production, i.e. visuals, effects, et al.

Bitter Script Reader: So glad you do agree!

[Lynnie]

Ohhhh. Gotcha. Kind of you to reply.

[twitter.com/dougbremner]

I'd like to know how the scripts even get into your lap to be read. Is it through query letters from writers to producers? Contacts? Or are they being sent cold?

[Jackie]

For someone who's never had a script produced, you're mighty critical of those who have succeeded.

[mernitman]

Lynnie: You're welcome.

Doug: 95% of the material that comes to the studio does so through agents; someone has to represent the project in order to get it through the door. Beyond that, yes, it's about personal contacts.

Jackie: More often, extremely supportive - in fact, I'm generally the person defending deeply flawed movies to people who can't understand how such a movie got made. I'm the one who when a good movie is released is more grateful and amazed than your average camper, because after working in the industry for a sizable portion of my life, I really do understand how hard it is to get something good made - let alone have it be a success.
I think my blog generally reflects that stance, so I'm a bit puzzled that you found this post unduly harsh.

[Stephen Gallagher]

The brutal truth of the matter is that by reducing a project to its premise, coverage pretty much anticipates the ticket-buying customer's first impression of the product. Concept appeal is no guarantee of a good movie but it gives you a head-start in sales.

[Helen]

It's been awhile since I've stopped by here, but I was looking around to see if you'd commented on the film I just saw -- Letters To Juliet -- and what you say explains how it got made. As to why it doesn't work, oh so many reasons, but the one I settled on while drifting off and admiring Vanessa Redgrave's bone structure was that the self-absorbed Italian boyfriend character is vastly more interesting than either of the two lead characters. And that's because he has both needs and flaws, while the other two have only one of each.

[mernitman]

Stephen: So true.

Helen: My mom suffered through it for the scenery, so there you go - it was a programmer "package" of some sort (some real needs and flaws don't hurt) - and thus has done okay.