Very impressed with Bluecat

[scriptwriter74]

I know most here don't like screenwriting competitions, but I was impressed with the full page analysis I received with my entry. They commented on both my strengths and also pointed out a few areas that need tweaking. I already had a feeling of the spots that needed some strengthening, but it was nice to get feedback that has motivated me to make one last final revision. For what it's worth, I do feel confident that the reader did read the entire story and I feel it was well worth the fee.

[Goodwriterguy]

I know most here don't like screenwriting competitions, but I was impressed with the full page analysis I received with my entry. They commented on both my strengths and also pointed out a few areas that need tweaking. I already had a feeling of the spots that needed some strengthening, but it was nice to get feedback that has motivated me to make one last final revision. For what it's worth, I do feel confident that the reader did read the entire story and I feel it was well worth the fee.
All this is well and good, but be careful.

I submitted a script to this contest back in late February. I too received a page of notes, much of which was complimentary. The criticisms were picky and included the fact that I had not used periods on INT or EXT, which I haven't done for a decade; the fact that at one point I had declared a SERIES OF SHOTS to convey the idea of three men making an escape running through woods and a cornfield and across a shallow river (no dialogue at all), and that my scenes were only spaced with one blank line.

The critic wrote that SERIES OF SHOTS was "too directorial," which got a laugh from me.

I was invited to resubmit for a "discounted" fee of $35.

I revised the script and fixed the things they had been critical of, including putting periods with my EXTs and INTs and cutting the SERIES OF SHOTS, and spacing my scenes with two blank lines. And resubmitted, on March 30th.

Now I'm into the contest for $85.

Today I got another one page set of notes on the resubmitted script. Again it had a lot of complimentary things to say and offered some criticism of certain story aspects, which had not been mentioned the first time around. These criticisms had some foundation in reality but also lacked depth and failed to account for some things that actually do happen in the script which resolve most of the issues brought forth, stemming from a lack of depth in their read, which was probably just a skim over.

I was again invited to resubmit for $35.

If I do that, I'll then be into this contest for $120 (or it'll be into me for that amount) and right now I'm wondering how long does this go on?

There's never been an indication of how long it goes on. And I sure's hell don't wanna pony up $155 to be in this contest, or any contest for that matter.

To be honest, I'm loathe to resubimit. $120 for a contest isn't my idea of the best deal around town, hell the Nicholl is a vastly more prestigious event with a prize that's three times the size of Bluecat's ... and it only costs $40 or something.

I smell a scam and its odour is stanky.
But in any event, good luck to you in your participation.:Sun:

[8thSamurai]

I've written coverage for BlueCat. How is getting the coverage (guaranteed with entry) but not winning the competition a scam? How is blaming the reader for 'not getting' your entry a sign of a scam?

It was your choice to resubmit - the contest does not charge $120 for entry, that's your rolling total based on resubmission.

[Goodwriterguy]

I've written coverage for BlueCat. How is getting the coverage (guaranteed with entry) but not winning the competition a scam? How is blaming the reader for 'not getting' your entry a sign of a scam?

It was your choice to resubmit - the contest does not charge $120 for entry, that's your rolling total based on resubmission.
Indeed it is and I didn't either say or imply it wasn't.

It was my choice to enter in the first place.

It's scamular if you enter a $50 contest and end up paying $120 or $155, or, God knows, $190.

Like I said, where does the resubmission business end? I have no clue.

I know I don't have to resubmit, but how many actualy don't resubmit? And if I don't resubmit the second time their asses are covered by the dumbassed notes they issued and Gordy can rate my script any damned where he pleases.

Criticizing a script for not using periods with EXT or INT or for using SERIES OF SHOTS?

Criticisms in the second review that didn't appear in the first?

Get real, Bubba.

[mario_c]

I entered and got good coverage for my script, more substantial than just formatting errors (or maybe they liked your script more. That's possible). This was general admission, but to resubmit for consideration does cost more. Yeah, meh - there are other contests, or just take the coverage and rewrite like a beast...

[scriptwriter74]

i agree my coverage was more substantial than simple grammatical or format errors, in fact they did not mention anything along those lines. They recommend resolving a few side plot points that I had left open ended and moving my turning point up about 10 pages if possible.

[zagoraz]

Be glad you got good coverage. I've entered Bluecat with four scripts over the last three years and have found that the quality of the feedback was entirely dependent on the quality of the reader. These aren't "industry insiders" reading our scripts, they're interns and wanna be writers and underpaid production company assistants. Feedback from my 2007 entry was incredibly insightful and very helpful in the rewrite. My feedback from two scripts this year was essentially the same feedback for both scripts. Very generic advice that could apply to most scripts, and a lot of it copied and pasted verbatim from one critique to another. Pretty lame.

I wouldn't pay for a re-submission. Fixing periods and formatting isn't going to win you a contest. A great story will, assuming the person reading the script isn't a hack himself. Anyways...

[nmstevens]

Indeed it is and I didn't either say or imply it wasn't.

It was my choice to enter in the first place.

It's scamular if you enter a $50 contest and end up paying $120 or $155, or, God knows, $190.

Like I said, where does the resubmission business end? I have no clue.

I know I don't have to resubmit, but how many actualy don't resubmit? And if I don't resubmit the second time their asses are covered by the dumbassed notes they issued and Gordy can rate my script any damned where he pleases.

Criticizing a script for not using periods with EXT or INT or for using SERIES OF SHOTS?

Criticisms in the second review that didn't appear in the first?

Get real, Bubba.


But what you should understand is that your script, whenever it comes in, is simply going to go to one of any number of readers who've signed on to review the screenplays that come in.

Readers, even presuming a certain base level qualification will always have differences.

Hell, I know for a fact that scripts of mine, submitted professionally, have gotten positive coverage at some places and negative coverage at other places, depending on the reader.

So inevitably, certain things are going to bother certain readers, who'll point them out in the coverage, that some other reader might very well not consider significant and might ignore.

You shouldn't think (and I imagine that you probably don't assume) that getting the equivalent of a reader's coverage is the same as getting in depth story analysis.

It will, inevitably, get the kind of comments that a quick read will yield -- some detailed, some general, but certainly nothing in depth.

And that's going to be true no matter how many times you submit it.

They'll always just be somebody's quick first reaction to the script.

So unless the comments are something along the lines of -- this script was really very good -- it was almost good enough to make the cut, but for X, Y, and Z -- one shouldn't look to the comments as the road to winning the contest -- but simply the broad brush stroke reactions of the readers.

The fact that they leave the door open for you to re-write and resubmit shouldn't be construed as their saying -- make the following changes along the lines that our readers have suggested, rewrite, and resubmit and you'll have a much better chance of winning.

At one point I also read scripts submitted to a script competition and as part of the evaluation process -- again more as a courtesy than anything else, the writers were given the opportunity to either meet with us for fifteen minutes or talk to us over the phone for fifteen minutes about their scripts.

And the fact is, I read dozens of scripts. At the level that I was reading, the most that I could do was recommend only a handful -- and my recommendation only moved that handful up to the level of the next "cut." I don't think any of them ever got much further than that.

So almost everyone that I talked to -- I'd rejected their work or their work ended up rejected later in the process by somebody else.

Most of it was terrible. Most of the rest was mediocre. But you didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on the phone telling people that their work was crap, so you try to find some constructive comments to make, something to say that would improve their work (hopeless though it doubtless would be in the overwhelming majority of cases) in some fashion.

And some of these people would get on the phone and really expect to have in-depth discussions about their screenplays and get line notes or get into detailed analysis about stuff. They didn't quite get that their script was number eighteen of forty scripts that I read -- and read quite quickly and that all they were really going to get for their twenty-five buck entry fee was some broad stroke notes and see you later Charlie.

Certainly, no one was suggesting to anybody -- make these changes and you'll win the contest or sell your script.

Now, I know that some people resubmitted their work because I recognized titles from previous years popping up in the stacks in subsequent years. But I wouldn't re-read a script. So it would go to some other reader.

So I suspect that the same writer would likely get on the phone and get rejected by some other reader -- maybe year after year.

Obviously for less than you paid for the privilege -- but that was his privilege.

NMS

[Goodwriterguy]

But what you should understand is that your script, whenever it comes in, is simply going to go to one of any number of readers who've signed on to review the screenplays that come in.

Readers, even presuming a certain base level qualification will always have differences.

Hell, I know for a fact that scripts of mine, submitted professionally, have gotten positive coverage at some places and negative coverage at other places, depending on the reader.

So inevitably, certain things are going to bother certain readers, who'll point them out in the coverage, that some other reader might very well not consider significant and might ignore.
Generally, this is bullshit. It isn't a matter of what "bothers" a reader, it's a matter of whether there are flaws, stuff that violates known principles, protocols, elements of dramatic structure, conventions, and the generally accepted practices of form, or outright errors.

Any reader should identify essentially the same set of flaws as the next reader, especially those that are egregious. People doing coverage should not be operating on the basis of their own tastes or preferences, they should be operating against comprehensive knowledge of the form and the accepted practices and conventions of it and an assessment of whether the writer achieved his goals and wrote a compelling, entertaining drama.

Maybe I've done too much script consulting in my time.


You shouldn't think (and I imagine that you probably don't assume) that getting the equivalent of a reader's coverage is the same as getting in depth story analysis.

It will, inevitably, get the kind of comments that a quick read will yield -- some detailed, some general, but certainly nothing in depth.

And that's going to be true no matter how many times you submit it.

They'll always just be somebody's quick first reaction to the script.

So unless the comments are something along the lines of -- this script was really very good -- it was almost good enough to make the cut, but for X, Y, and Z -- one shouldn't look to the comments as the road to winning the contest -- but simply the broad brush stroke reactions of the readers.

The fact that they leave the door open for you to re-write and resubmit shouldn't be construed as their saying -- make the following changes along the lines that our readers have suggested, rewrite, and resubmit and you'll have a much better chance of winning.
Why do it then? What is the purpose?

Just to collect another $35?


At one point I also read scripts submitted to a script competition and as part of the evaluation process -- again more as a courtesy than anything else, the writers were given the opportunity to either meet with us for fifteen minutes or talk to us over the phone for fifteen minutes about their scripts.

And the fact is, I read dozens of scripts. At the level that I was reading, the most that I could do was recommend only a handful -- and my recommendation only moved that handful up to the level of the next "cut." I don't think any of them ever got much further than that.

So almost everyone that I talked to -- I'd rejected their work or their work ended up rejected later in the process by somebody else.

Most of it was terrible. Most of the rest was mediocre. But you didn't want to spend fifteen minutes on the phone telling people that their work was crap, so you try to find some constructive comments to make, something to say that would improve their work (hopeless though it doubtless would be in the overwhelming majority of cases) in some fashion.

And some of these people would get on the phone and really expect to have in-depth discussions about their screenplays and get line notes or get into detailed analysis about stuff. They didn't quite get that their script was number eighteen of forty scripts that I read -- and read quite quickly and that all they were really going to get for their twenty-five buck entry fee was some broad stroke notes and see you later Charlie.

Certainly, no one was suggesting to anybody -- make these changes and you'll win the contest or sell your script.

Now, I know that some people resubmitted their work because I recognized titles from previous years popping up in the stacks in subsequent years. But I wouldn't re-read a script. So it would go to some other reader.

So I suspect that the same writer would likely get on the phone and get rejected by some other reader -- maybe year after year.

Obviously for less than you paid for the privilege -- but that was his privilege.
Oh I understand all of this, I mean, this is not the first script competition I've ever entered and in fact I've probably entered 50 of them, perhaps even more, I lost count a long time ago. I've won some, placed high in others, and not placed at all in many.

What I didn't expect from BlueCat was a second go round, certanly a first in my experience. I assumed that the first go round was intended to identify major issues a script may have and provide an opportunity for the writer to fix those or at least work on them and get his work (more) ready for the contest.

I mean, why else would a contest even give notes and offer an opportunity to resubmit?

So I did that, even though the criticisms didn't really identify anything that was particularly noteworthy and were in fact pretty nit picky, as I have explained here.

And why would they hand the resubmitted script off to a different reader and send me another set of notes that bore no relationship to the first set? Couldn't that go on forever? Of course it could.

There was no indication at the outset that this would be the process. The indication was one set of notes, one resubmittal, and your done.

I'm sure as hell not going to rewrite based on the notes I got the second time around, which plainly came from someone who just skimmed the script. I'd be a fool to do that. And after all the years I've been at this game I'm no dilettante who can't be objective about his work and see the flaws in it and accept that they exist when in fact they do.

I never enter a contest with an expectation of winning. I'm always happy to get a finish that's in the top ten per cent and even if that doesn't happen it's gotta be c'est la vie yunno, that's just the nature of these kinds of competitions. Win some, lose some.

I'm going to let my submission stand as it is and I'll take whatever finish it may garner and not complain about it, it'll be whatever it'll be. But I'm not going into any contest for $120. Eighty-five dollars is already too much in my book.

I appreciate your commentary, but man I have been here and done this a boatload of times so for the most part it'sd all pretty familiar geography to me. Except, this two times around the horn deal with BlueCat is not something that's within my experience, despite it being rather long and comprehensive. It just struck me as odd and not necessary.

C'est la vie! :)

[ricetalks]

Here's my advice on screenwriting competitions. Write your screenplay. Pick the best competitions. Submit. Shelve the screenplay. Write a new script. See how the last script placed. Get feed back. Plan a re-write. Re-write. Re-submit ONCE. See how it does. Put it out there. Move on. Finish the next script.

[nmstevens]

Generally, this is bullshit. It isn't a matter of what "bothers" a reader, it's a matter of whether there are flaws, stuff that violates known principles, protocols, elements of dramatic structure, conventions, and the generally accepted practices of form, or outright errors.

Any reader should identify essentially the same set of flaws as the next reader, especially those that are egregious. People doing coverage should not be operating on the basis of their own tastes or preferences, they should be operating against comprehensive knowledge of the form and the accepted practices and conventions of it and an assessment of whether the writer achieved his goals and wrote a compelling, entertaining drama.

Maybe I've done too much script consulting in my time.


Why do it then? What is the purpose?

Just to collect another $35?


Oh I understand all of this, I mean, this is not the first script competition I've ever entered and in fact I've probably entered 50 of them, perhaps even more, I lost count a long time ago. I've won some, placed high in others, and not placed at all in many.

What I didn't expect from BlueCat was a second go round, certanly a first in my experience. I assumed that the first go round was intended to identify major issues a script may have and provide an opportunity for the writer to fix those or at least work on them and get his work (more) ready for the contest.

I mean, why else would a contest even give notes and offer an opportunity to resubmit?

So I did that, even though the criticisms didn't really identify anything that was particularly noteworthy and were in fact pretty nit picky, as I have explained here.

And why would they hand the resubmitted script off to a different reader and send me another set of notes that bore no relationship to the first set? Couldn't that go on forever? Of course it could.

There was no indication at the outset that this would be the process. The indication was one set of notes, one resubmittal, and your done.

I'm sure as hell not going to rewrite based on the notes I got the second time around, which plainly came from someone who just skimmed the script. I'd be a fool to do that. And after all the years I've been at this game I'm no dilettante who can't be objective about his work and see the flaws in it and accept that they exist when in fact they do.

I never enter a contest with an expectation of winning. I'm always happy to get a finish that's in the top ten per cent and even if that doesn't happen it's gotta be c'est la vie yunno, that's just the nature of these kinds of competitions. Win some, lose some.

I'm going to let my submission stand as it is and I'll take whatever finish it may garner and not complain about it, it'll be whatever it'll be. But I'm not going into any contest for $120. Eighty-five dollars is already too much in my book.

I appreciate your commentary, but man I have been here and done this a boatload of times so for the most part it'sd all pretty familiar geography to me. Except, this two times around the horn deal with BlueCat is not something that's within my experience, despite it being rather long and comprehensive. It just struck me as odd and not necessary.

C'est la vie! :)


Okay, I want to try to respond constructively to some of the points that you've raised.

One might claim, in an ideal world, you'd be correct and every reader would point out the same fundamental flaws and issues.

But in another sense, you have to understand that this is, after all, an art and not a science. Readers not only bring their taste, they also bring a particular aesthetic approach to the art itself and, just as in the real world, what one critic may consider to be a good movie, another, using a different set of aesthetic criteria, may consider to be mediocre.

It isn't that one is right and other is wrong. They are simply approaching the work in different ways. It isn't simply a matter of taste. Even things that might strike one reader as egregious, might not strike another reader that way, in the same was as the absence (to take an example off the top of my head) as the lack of a clear narrative story in some later Fellini movies, might bother some critics, but obviously didn't bother others.


As to why they do it, that is something that should be very clear to you.

The reason that the readers in these contests read the scripts isn't for the purpose of providing you with a script analysis. That isn't the case in Blue Cat and it wasn't the case in the competition that I worked on.

We read the scripts in order to judge them for the contest. The entry fee that you paid wasn't intended to buy coverage or the services of a story analyst. It was intended to pay for the overall costs of the contest -- and if that involves a profit for those who set up the contest, that may very well be the case, but why shouldn't it be. Who ever said screenplay competitions were a charitable enterprise?

One thing for sure -- the people who are reading and commenting on the scripts aren't making any kind of a killing. Even if they got every cent of what you paid in your entrance fee, and that hardly seems likely, they'd still be earning a fraction of the going rate for doing coverage on a screenplay.

I suspect that Blue cat made the same sort decision that was made in the competion that I was part of. They figured that, since they had readers reading the scripts in order to evaluate them *for their competition* -- why not have those readers also pass on their opinions about those scripts, such as they were, onto the writers.

But the primary purpose of the reading is for the purposes of the competition -- not primarily for the writers.

The notes (like my brief conversations with the writers) are really a courtesy. a sort of extra benefit above and beyond what your entrance fee is buying -- which is participation in the contest.

And I must tell you that it seems very odd to me that if a script is rejected and the notes, as you indicate, are minor and nitpicky -- and while I don't know that there are semi-finals or anything like that, but I'm guessing that there was no suggestion that your script finished close to the top -- why would you imagine that making a handful of minor changes would make the difference between winning and losing?

That is, if a script is so good that it virtually wins, they're not going *not* give it the prize because of INT or INT.

So you have to say about reader's notes -- sometimes a reader can come up with useful "global" suggestions, and sometimes they can't. Sometimes script fixes are obvious and sometimes they're not.

But to assume that because a readers' notes consist of only A-F that that's the only thing that's wrong with your script so if I fix that and resubmit it -- shouldn't I win?

And maybe that's not what you're saying, but you somehow seem aggrieved that the result was the same.

And if you didn't believe that, if you figured that if you resubmitted what amounted to essentially the same script and that you'd lose again -- why did you do it?

So on some level, I think you might have harbored that hope -- and maybe Blue cat, in some sense encouraged that hope, although I don't necessarily think that they did so intentionally.

Finally, while I'm not in a position to question the road that anybody chooses to take -- who can say what might ultimately lead to success -- I seriously question whether devoting so much of your time and effort to this world of screenplay competitions might not ultimately be a self-defeating one.

The overwhelming majority of them, even if you win, mean nothing at all. They provide no access to professional opportunities. The victories carries no weight in the professional world. The criteria, for many contests, bear to resemblance to the criteria that professional producers and buyers of screenplays use in determining what they are going to buy.

So while you may be gaining a lot of experience, I wonder whether you might be gaining a lot of experiencing in a realm that has little do with the real world of selling screenplays to people who make movies.

Because, let's face it -- if you were doing that -- selling screenplays to people who make movies, you wouldn't be bothering with screenplay contests.

NMS

[8thSamurai]

Thank you, Mr/Mrs/Miss Stevens.

I did write a 'diary' type thing about my experience on the other side - I should probably post it to my blog at some point.

Each potential reviewer is given one script to do coverage on. Based on that coverage, you get hired or not - at a whopping ten dollars per screenplay. The shortest read to final coverage that I managed was around an hour - the longest was six (I still shudder thinking about the 400 page screenplay). So at best, I spent a month making seven bucks an hour, because I wanted to hone my critical skills.

Each script was given a rating from 1-10 from several different reviewers. I believe the highest and lowest numbers are canned.

In three weeks, I read 600 screenplays. One of them didn't suck, but needed more development. There were a handful that didn't make any sense at all - seemed like someone went through a random text generator just to mess with me. Lots of plodding and navel gazing. Lots of action scripts with no action. LOTS of unbelievable characters. (Don't get me started on the 'struggling writer protagonist makes good and shows everybody' storyline - I'd say about half of what I read were those.)

I would love the opportunity to read again, preferably for a producer or production company rather than a contest - it was enlightening.

As a bonus, it did make me feel a hell of a lot better about my own writing.

[DevelopmentExec]

People doing coverage should not be operating on the basis of their own tastes or preferences, they should be operating against comprehensive knowledge of the form and the accepted practices and conventions of it and an assessment of whether the writer achieved his goals and wrote a compelling, entertaining drama.

I agree that personal tastes and preferences shouldn't come into play when providing coverage.

But let's face it, experienced readers who have the comprehensive knowledge you mention are not going to sign up to read for contests like this.

Pro readers make six times (or more) as much per script than Blue Cat pays its readers. So competitions like this attract amateurs who want to gain experience, not those who have it. Therefore you're likely to get feedback on mechanical and formatting errors - things that are easy for them to flag as wrong, and critiques based on personal likes or dislikes. That's why I say that you shouldn't enter a contest as a way of getting feedback for almost nothing, because chances are you'll get what you pay for. Chances are you're getting feedback from someone who knows less than you do about screenwriting.

I'm not a big proponent of writers getting coverage to begin with, even by experienced pro readers. Because first of all, its virtually impossible to provide the depth and breadth of feedback that most writers need in two or three pages of notes. And also because industry coverage is not meant to be for the writer's benefit, it's for the executive's benefit to explain why a script is receiving a pass or getting recommended. In Hollywood, writers rarely ever see the coverage on their scripts. In most cases, readers are low level employees - whose input ends with the coverage. They are trained to do industry coverage, not to provide notes to benefit writers. That is the responsibility of the higher level development people.

Though more expensive, an in-depth evaluation from someone with real development / professional screenwriting experience is usually more helpful to a screenwriter than coverage.

[Script a Wish]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and open myself up to controversy by referring you guys to a post we put on our blog a month or so ago. Many flamed us; many applauded us.

The title is, Why (Most) Screenplay Competitions Suck.

It was written by a screenplay contest judge. Feel free to check it out at http://blog.scriptawish.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=2&page=1&paged=4

There's also a follow-up series about a woman who won enough screenwriting competitions to pay her rent for a year in LA.

Before she ultimately became so disenchanted that she gave screenwriting up altogether.

[Goodwriterguy]

I agree that personal tastes and preferences shouldn't come into play when providing coverage.

But let's face it, experienced readers who have the comprehensive knowledge you mention are not going to sign up to read for contests like this.

Pro readers make six times (or more) as much per script than Blue Cat pays its readers. So competitions like this attract amateurs who want to gain experience, not those who have it. Therefore you're likely to get feedback on mechanical and formatting errors - things that are easy for them to flag as wrong, and critiques based on personal likes or dislikes. That's why I say that you shouldn't enter a contest as a way of getting feedback for almost nothing, because chances are you'll get what you pay for. Chances are you're getting feedback from someone who knows less than you do about screenwriting.

I'm not a big proponent of writers getting coverage to begin with, even by experienced pro readers. Because first of all, its virtually impossible to provide the depth and breadth of feedback that most writers need in two or three pages of notes. And also because industry coverage is not meant to be for the writer's benefit, it's for the executive's benefit to explain why a script is receiving a pass or getting recommended. In Hollywood, writers rarely ever see the coverage on their scripts. In most cases, readers are low level employees - whose input ends with the coverage. They are trained to do industry coverage, not to provide notes to benefit writers. That is the responsibility of the higher level development people.

Though more expensive, an in-depth evaluation from someone with real development / professional screenwriting experience is usually more helpful to a screenwriter than coverage.
Absolutely. I know all this like the back of my hand, just as you do yourself.

I never expected to get any sort of in-depth evaluation from BlueCat, I just wanted to enter the contest. When I got the notes back and the offer to resubmit it seemed to make sense to revise my piece to the notes, so I put periods on my INTs and EXTs, wrote the SERIES OF SHOTS out in normal scene form, spaced my scenes with two leading blank lines, edited about four speeches the reader had identified as being OTN, and resubmitted.

I know the difference between coverage and a critique, the two are not the same animal at all. BlueCat does not refer to its analysis as "coverage" and surely it isn't. They refer to it as a "critique," and that it is, albeit on the lightweight end of the spectrum.

In my script consulting when I do a critique it can involve up to 5,000 words of commentary and illustrative material. I once did one that was 13,000 words. I probably average 2,500 words in some 100 comments, more or less, and I separate comments on the form from comments on the story.

I also write coverage for some producers, and that's a whole other balllgame. It takes a different form because it has a different purpose.

So I'm on the very same page you are with this.

Like I said, I'm going to let my submission stand as it is and we'll see how well the script does. It appears they're supposed to announce in June. But I'm certainly not going to sweat it and I'll take whatever ranking that comes out with my usual aplomb, yunno, the world won't come to an end.

Enjoy your day! :)

[Goodwriterguy]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and open myself up to controversy by referring you guys to a post we put on our blog a month or so ago. Many flamed us; many applauded us.

The title is, Why (Most) Screenplay Competitions Suck.

It was written by a screenplay contest judge. Feel free to check it out at http://blog.scriptawish.com/b2evolution/index.php?blog=2&page=1&paged=4

There's also a follow-up series about a woman who won enough screenwriting competitions to pay her rent for a year in LA.

Before she ultimately became so disenchanted that she gave screenwriting up altogether.
I don't see a lot to disagree with in this blog post, except I think the Austin Film Festival contest is worthwhile and Disney's thing is just a way for them to flesh out their cadre racially and gender-wise so that they're politically correct ... so unless you happen to be among some minority, you're wasting your time with them.

But other than that caveat, the rundown is all pretty much on the money.

The problem is that if you hapen to be older than 30 years of age, both Nicholl and Sundance become very long shots because neither of them think a career can be launched after about that age.

C'est la vie!

[mario_c]

Thank you, Mr/Mrs/Miss Stevens.

I did write a 'diary' type thing about my experience on the other side - I should probably post it to my blog at some point.

Each potential reviewer is given one script to do coverage on. Based on that coverage, you get hired or not - at a whopping ten dollars per screenplay. The shortest read to final coverage that I managed was around an hour - the longest was six (I still shudder thinking about the 400 page screenplay). So at best, I spent a month making seven bucks an hour, because I wanted to hone my critical skills.

Each script was given a rating from 1-10 from several different reviewers. I believe the highest and lowest numbers are canned.

In three weeks, I read 600 screenplays. One of them didn't suck, but needed more development. There were a handful that didn't make any sense at all - seemed like someone went through a random text generator just to mess with me. Lots of plodding and navel gazing. Lots of action scripts with no action. LOTS of unbelievable characters. (Don't get me started on the 'struggling writer protagonist makes good and shows everybody' storyline - I'd say about half of what I read were those.)

I would love the opportunity to read again, preferably for a producer or production company rather than a contest - it was enlightening.

As a bonus, it did make me feel a hell of a lot better about my own writing.
That's thirty scripts a DAY. At TEN BUCKS EACH?! That is completely insane. I intern as a reader and read for a few writers' groups / websites, and 4 scripts is a good WEEK. (I have a unrelated full-time job, TBF.) Pros do 3 to as many as 5 a day, starting around $40 each. Did you even sleep for the 3 weeks?

*wondering if you wrote my coverage...If you did, you were quite kind to me :D *

[Goodwriterguy]

That's thirty scripts a DAY. At TEN BUCKS EACH?! That is completely insane. I intern as a reader and read for a few writers' groups / websites, and 4 scripts is a good WEEK. (I have a unrelated full-time job, TBF.) Pros do 3 to as many as 5 a day, starting around $40 each. Did you even sleep for the 3 weeks?

*wondering if you wrote my coverage...If you did, you were quite kind to me :D *
It is insane! In a ten hour day that's 30 minutes a script, about the time it takes for a quick skim read at best, or a read of the first ten pages and a look at the page number on the last page and maybe a skim of the ending.

It's ludicrous.

An old friend of mine in this business who was Exec Producer on "Touched by an Angel" (ugh) and has 70 some credits on IMDB once said to me, "It takes two weels to absorb a feature." And he was referring to reading and all the consideration that should go into it.

Back in the 70's and 80's before Hollywood was inundated with a tsunami of new screenplays a typical prodco or studio story department reader would be given two or three scripts to read in a week.

We have entered the age of insanity. How long before we completely flip out?
:flag:

[Mac H.]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and open myself up to controversy by referring you guys to a post we put on our blog a month or so ago. Many flamed us; many applauded us.

The title is, Why (Most) Screenplay Competitions Suck.

I don't see a lot to disagree with in this blog post ... the rundown is all pretty much on the moneyThat's the weird thing - you posted something similar on another screenwriting board about how controversial this post was, but nobody there found it controversial either !

So where is all this controversy? According to your own blog stats:

Part 1 of the controversial post: 8 views, nobody left comments
Part 2 of the controversial post: 8 views, nobody left comments
Part 3 of the controversial post: 37 views, nobody left comments

I dunno - I'm having a hard time really understanding that a post with 8 views and no comments can really be seen as 'controversial' !

Mac

[Team 2012]

It's too inflammatory to even discuss.

[gophergrrrl]

I want to read for contests. =/

[Hillgate]

Hi - this is an interesting debate. Even if you win a screenwriting competition it is absolutely no guarantee of having an optioned let alone a completed film for which you as writer have been paid.

I receive, as do many of us perhaps, lots of pushed emails from the likes of Inktip describing successes and pitching new stories, inviting writers to join the network. Screenwriting comps can work and you can get noticed. But it is no short cut to anything. Not at all. The fact that someone's screenplay has won a competition might make someone more likely to read it more closely, to see what someone else saw in it, but it won't persuade them that it is worth someone else spending a few million making it unless it ticks a huge number of boxes. For them. For no-one else. It is subjective. And then them becomes a committee and you have more complications because there needs to be a chain of yesses which can be broken very easily, especially if stretched over a period of years for any given project.

There is no guarantee that everyone will like 'The Shining' or 'Network.' Some people loved 'Da Vinci Code'. I hated the film, as did many critics. The script and pacing and acting were off. In my view. But not in Sony's. Sony spent USD120m making it and more than that again in marketing it. They made money out of it. Res ipsa loquitur.

Some films that do get made have lacklustre scripts. In my opinion. But NOT in the opinion of the financiers/director etc. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong? I've made a couple of films that are OK. I've got two more in the pipeline. They will not change the world. I have one that is a 'classic', but no-one wants it. At the moment. The scripts for the completed films were ok, perhaps flawed, even. They were not classics. It didn't matter. At the end of the day what happened is that the point at which money and art actually met produced a baby. The baby is no Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie, but it can still be loved.

I agree completely with NMS on the INT/INT. point. I've read great spec scripts from established writer/directors that are grammatically disastrous, formatted on MS Word with more faux-pas than a Fawlty Towers French bistro. Being good has nothing to do with full stops and commas. I know good when I see it. All of us do. And it is the most subjective thing in the world. Just because we all think 'Chinatown' is a fantastic script doesn't mean it has reached an objective nirvana: it just means that there is a mass subjective consensus.

I think, after that missive, I need a glass of wine.

[Script a Wish]

I don't see a lot to disagree with in this blog post, except I think the Austin Film Festival contest is worthwhile and Disney's thing is just a way for them to flesh out their cadre racially and gender-wise so that they're politically correct ... so unless you happen to be among some minority, you're wasting your time with them.

But other than that caveat, the rundown is all pretty much on the money.

The problem is that if you hapen to be older than 30 years of age, both Nicholl and Sundance become very long shots because neither of them think a career can be launched after about that age.

C'est la vie!

Austin is pretty good; SXSW is also okay. I believe SXSW was the one that had a script win and later be made into an Alicia Silverstone vehicle. The thing is that those contests are not as solid as the others in terms of launching careers. If you look at the stats...

That's the weird thing - you posted something similar on another screenwriting board about how controversial this post was, but nobody there found it controversial either !

So where is all this controversy? According to your own blog stats:

Part 1 of the controversial post: 8 views, nobody left comments
Part 2 of the controversial post: 8 views, nobody left comments
Part 3 of the controversial post: 37 views, nobody left comments

I dunno - I'm having a hard time really understanding that a post with 8 views and no comments can really be seen as 'controversial' !

Mac

Don't trust that counter: That's only when people click on a direct link to that specific post.

The controversy came in the form of some other forums, as well as people tweeting at us like mad.

[8thSamurai]

Yeah, it was insane - if I were reading for a company, it would have been easier - try doing constructive 1,000 word coverage on a script that's functionally illiterate.

I'm not sure who I did coverage for - there are no names attached to any of the screenplays. I read the majority of them twice- once for story, once for practical issues. Toward the end, though, I'm sure I got sloppier. And page count DOES make a difference - 400 pages is too much for a screenplay, getting through it once was bad enough.

Gopher - hang out on film forums. That's where the ads were. It was a valuable experience, though I'm not sure that I would do it again.

I would love to do it for an actual company though - anyone have a lead for a reader(preferably read from home)?

[8thSamurai]

It is insane! In a ten hour day that's 30 minutes a script, about the time it takes for a quick skim read at best, or a read of the first ten pages and a look at the page number on the last page and maybe a skim of the ending.

It's ludicrous.

An old friend of mine in this business who was Exec Producer on "Touched by an Angel" (ugh) and has 70 some credits on IMDB once said to me, "It takes two weels to absorb a feature." And he was referring to reading and all the consideration that should go into it.

Back in the 70's and 80's before Hollywood was inundated with a tsunami of new screenplays a typical prodco or studio story department reader would be given two or three scripts to read in a week.

We have entered the age of insanity. How long before we completely flip out?
:flag:


Bleh - who said my days were ten hours? :) I would have loved to really take my time and be able to do ten pages of comprehensive coverage, but it didn't work that way.

It is insane, and I completely agree with your exec. When I'm handed a script for a job, it takes time to digest. Except for those I reject within the first five pages(which is most of them). (I do lighting and DP stuff as well as write, and often get the script to look over before deciding whether or not to take a job.)

[nmstevens]

It is insane! In a ten hour day that's 30 minutes a script, about the time it takes for a quick skim read at best, or a read of the first ten pages and a look at the page number on the last page and maybe a skim of the ending.

It's ludicrous.

An old friend of mine in this business who was Exec Producer on "Touched by an Angel" (ugh) and has 70 some credits on IMDB once said to me, "It takes two weels to absorb a feature." And he was referring to reading and all the consideration that should go into it.

Back in the 70's and 80's before Hollywood was inundated with a tsunami of new screenplays a typical prodco or studio story department reader would be given two or three scripts to read in a week.

We have entered the age of insanity. How long before we completely flip out?
:flag:

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I've worked as a reader and I've supervised readers for a company that had an "open door" policy -- we'd read pretty much anything that anybody willing to sign a release form would send in to us.

And while it might take a decent amount of time to read and comment appropriatedly on a script of professional calibre, you pretty much know if you have a worthless piece of junk after two or three pages. Often after one page.

So you've read those three pages. You, as a reader know that it's a pass. You know it because you're going to give it a pass. You also know it because you know that anybody above you who reads those few first pages will also give it a pass.

So what are you going to do? Devote the next three or four hours of your life reading over every word and carefully laying out each ridiculous plot point and then describing in detail why this latest in an endless stream of crap belongs in the circular file to which it will ultimately be consigned?

I guess, in some sense, that might be what your professional obligation as a reader would require.

But in fact, that's not what readers generally do. What they do when they come across a script like this is they read the first ten pages. They read the last ten pages and they sort of skim the rest to get a general sense of what the stupid script is about -- which usually takes around fifteen minutes and based on that, they write the coverage and the coverage will bear some relationship to the story, although round about the middle, that relationship is often a rather impressionistic one.

Then they will tell you why the script is neither worth reading nor buying and move on to the next.

I know that they do this because sometimes readers will get a little bit cocky and they will try this stunt with scripts that are right on the edge and they'll submit the coverage and (as actually happened a few times), our boss would read the logline (he never actually bothered reading the coverage itself -- just the loglines) -- and based on that he'd say -- "Gee, this looks kind of interesting. Neal, why don't you read it and let me know what you think."

And so I would end up having to read these scripts -- and having actually read the coverage, I would know that the readers were just flat out making up whole sections of the coverage. It bore virtually no resemblance at all to what was happening in the screenplay. You could just tell that they skimmed it and picked out character names and details here and there and just tried to figure out what was happening and made up the rest as they were writing.

And I've managed to read coverage of my own stuff on occasion and know for a fact that the readers have done the same thing -- they just skimmed it and blew out the coverage without really reading it.

That's how it works in the *professional* world -- and has worked that way for as long as I've been a part of it.

NMS

[Goodwriterguy]

I can't speak for the previous poster, but I've worked as a reader and I've supervised readers for a company that had an "open door" policy -- we'd read pretty much anything that anybody willing to sign a release form would send in to us.

And while it might take a decent amount of time to read and comment appropriatedly on a script of professional calibre, you pretty much know if you have a worthless piece of junk after two or three pages. Often after one page.

So you've read those three pages. You, as a reader know that it's a pass. You know it because you're going to give it a pass. You also know it because you know that anybody above you who reads those few first pages will also give it a pass.

So what are you going to do? Devote the next three or four hours of your life reading over every word and carefully laying out each ridiculous plot point and then describing in detail why this latest in an endless stream of crap belongs in the circular file to which it will ultimately be consigned?

I guess, in some sense, that might be what your professional obligation as a reader would require.

But in fact, that's not what readers generally do. What they do when they come across a script like this is they read the first ten pages. They read the last ten pages and they sort of skim the rest to get a general sense of what the stupid script is about -- which usually takes around fifteen minutes and based on that, they write the coverage and the coverage will bear some relationship to the story, although round about the middle, that relationship is often a rather impressionistic one.

Then they will tell you why the script is neither worth reading nor buying and move on to the next.

I know that they do this because sometimes readers will get a little bit cocky and they will try this stunt with scripts that are right on the edge and they'll submit the coverage and (as actually happened a few times), our boss would read the logline (he never actually bothered reading the coverage itself -- just the loglines) -- and based on that he'd say -- "Gee, this looks kind of interesting. Neal, why don't you read it and let me know what you think."

And so I would end up having to read these scripts -- and having actually read the coverage, I would know that the readers were just flat out making up whole sections of the coverage. It bore virtually no resemblance at all to what was happening in the screenplay. You could just tell that they skimmed it and picked out character names and details here and there and just tried to figure out what was happening and made up the rest as they were writing.

And I've managed to read coverage of my own stuff on occasion and know for a fact that the readers have done the same thing -- they just skimmed it and blew out the coverage without really reading it.

That's how it works in the *professional* world -- and has worked that way for as long as I've been a part of it.
The last thing I'd ever do is suggest that a reader spend more than five or ten minutres of a script that's obviously a piece of junk.

This is why most agencies, prodcos, and studios do not operate an "open door" policy, they know what'll come through the door if they do. So first they make a writer convey to them the gist of their script in a dynamite logline. If that wins acceptance they ask for a one-page synopsis, and if that doesn't shoot the query full of holes and is impressive, they'll ask to see the script.

This serves to winnow submissions and no doubt eliminates a lot of the crap.

But still, some crap gets through, and when it does, it oughta get very short shrift.

I'd think that most readers can differentiate between a piece of quality screenwriting and crap screenwriting just by skimming and reading a few scenes or, as you say, reading the first ten pages. Competence has a way of standing out, even jumping out.

This didn't become the costly burden it is today until CNN ran a feature piece in the early 90's about how easy it was to get rich writing movies, replete with the urban myths about the Janitor at Paramount who sold a script for a $million or the Secretary over at Sony who did the same.

In 1990 the Nicholl attracted fewer than 600 entries; last year it attracted 6,000. In the 80's and early 90's the WGA was registering no more than a thousand new scripts a year; last year 50,000 were registered.

When the tsunami of new scripts hit the industry around 1994 agencies and prodcos and studios had no choice but to slam their doors shut. It's much too costly to wade through a zillion crap scripts in hopes of finding one that's competent. Many of them instituted a referral only policy. Most started asking for one page synposes when they discovered a good logline and accepting a script submission only when said synopsis proved to be a grabber and the genre/story was in a vein of interest.

When Triggerstreet first started and soon enough 2,000 scripts had been posted there every story department in town was searching that database for new material. Nobody found anything worth a plugged nickel and after a few months of trying they gave it up.

At most something like 200 properties are purchased each year, another 200 are optioned, and another 100 are assigned. And there are some 2,000 writers in the WGA who work pretty steadily. And yet the tsunami continues to flow in, against odds that are so huge as to be almost infinitely long.

All it really means is there's a jillion dumbass people walking around with their heads a mile up their butts looking for easy street. In most cases, addiction to instant gratification is the toxin that drives them.

There's nobody one can "blame" for any of this, it's just the nature of the beast. It is what it is. I prefer to stay focused on my own work and exerting effort to make it the best I can and not engage in too much whining about access. We all have to engineer our way in whilst hoping for a bit of luck or a serendipitous turn of events to open a door or two.

Nobody promised us a rose garden. Nevertheless, the cream tends to rise to the top and even some grossly bad scripts like Craig Zahler's "THE BRIGANDS OF RATTLEBORGE" get sold or optioned, just why has to be anyone's guess.

Just keep plugging. :)

[mario_c]

Some very good points here. My internship is with an open door kind of management service, reading scripts. I also read scripts from TriggerStreet, Zoetrope and the lot.
Because we share coverage with the author it's vital to be thorough, because hell hath no fury like an author who believes you skimmed their masterwork, especially if you give anything less than Recommend. I'd be offended too.
BlueCat sends coverage to their submitters and the information sent to me by Mr. Hoffman and his merry band of ritalin crazed readers :ROFL:(busting your chops, 8th) was accurate and quite helpful. I can't believe it was a half hour chop job.<snipping for brevity>This didn't become the costly burden it is today until CNN ran a feature piece in the early 90's about how easy it was to get rich writing movies, replete with the urban myths about the Janitor at Paramount who sold a script for a $million or the Secretary over at Sony who did the same.
Or the lawyer from Vicksburg, MS who doesn't even use a word processor, who is the most sought after novelist in the courtroom genre today.
In 1990 the Nicholl attracted fewer than 600 entries; last year it attracted 6,000. In the 80's and early 90's the WGA was registering no more than a thousand new scripts a year; last year 50,000 were registered.

When the tsunami of new scripts hit the industry around 1994 agencies and prodcos and studios had no choice but to slam their doors shut. It's much too costly to wade through a zillion crap scripts in hopes of finding one that's competent. Many of them instituted a referral only policy. Most started asking for one page synposes when they discovered a good logline and accepting a script submission only when said synopsis proved to be a grabber and the genre/story was in a vein of interest.

When Triggerstreet first started and soon enough 2,000 scripts had been posted there every story department in town was searching that database for new material. Nobody found anything worth a plugged nickel and after a few months of trying they gave it up.
This is changing, as some members are getting optioned and even GASP filmed. But that isn't really TrigSt's role - it's boot camp for newbie script writers.
At most something like 200 properties are purchased each year, another 200 are optioned, and another 100 are assigned. And there are some 2,000 writers in the WGA who work pretty steadily. <snipping for brevity>Nevertheless, the cream tends to rise to the top and even some grossly bad scripts like Craig Zahler's "THE BRIGANDS OF RATTLEBORGE" get sold or optioned, just why has to be anyone's guess.

Just keep plugging. :)The "Brigands" logline and press looks fascinating. I'd see it, but I'm weird.
<snipping for brevity>What they do when they come across a script like this is they read the first ten pages. They read the last ten pages and they sort of skim the rest to get a general sense of what the stupid script is about -- which usually takes around fifteen minutes and based on that, they write the coverage and the coverage will bear some relationship to the story, although round about the middle, that relationship is often a rather impressionistic one.

Then they will tell you why the script is neither worth reading nor buying and move on to the next.

I know that they do this because sometimes readers will get a little bit cocky and they will try this stunt with scripts that are right on the edge and they'll submit the coverage and (as actually happened a few times), our boss would read the logline (he never actually bothered reading the coverage itself -- just the loglines) -- and based on that he'd say -- "Gee, this looks kind of interesting. Neal, why don't you read it and let me know what you think."

And so I would end up having to read these scripts -- and having actually read the coverage, I would know that the readers were just flat out making up whole sections of the coverage. It bore virtually no resemblance at all to what was happening in the screenplay. You could just tell that they skimmed it and picked out character names and details here and there and just tried to figure out what was happening and made up the rest as they were writing.

And I've managed to read coverage of my own stuff on occasion and know for a fact that the readers have done the same thing -- they just skimmed it and blew out the coverage without really reading it.

That's how it works in the *professional* world -- and has worked that way for as long as I've been a part of it.

NMSShifting responsibility - what Dilbert called "throwing that dead cat in someone else's backyard". :ROFL:One day I'll be at that level that I can kill four turkeys in an hour, get paid and enjoy the night off. That would be lovely!

[Goodwriterguy]

Some very good points here. My internship is with an open door kind of management service, reading scripts. I also read scripts from TriggerStreet, Zoetrope and the lot.
Because we share coverage with the author it's vital to be thorough, because hell hath no fury like an author who believes you skimmed their masterwork, especially if you give anything less than Recommend. I'd be offended too.

BlueCat sends coverage to their submitters and the information sent to me by Mr. Hoffman and his merry band of ritalin crazed readers.
You are misusing the term "coverage." The word you ought to be using is either "notes" (in the case of BlueCat especially) or "critique."

A writer gets no coverage from Trigger or Zoetrope or Bluecat; they get analysis/notes/critical commentary, which I think falls under the overall rubric of "critique."


This is changing, as some members are getting optioned and even GASP filmed.
Hooray!


But that isn't really TrigSt's role - it's boot camp for newbie script writers.
How can you ay this in the face of Mr. Spacey's avowed intention when he created the site? To wit, "to give unknown writers another avenue of access to the industry."

Trigger's "evaluations" are peer reviews intended to facilitate a ranking process, and while they do indeed perform that function they also provide some feedback to writers on their work, for whatever it's worth, which often isn't very much because newbies evaluating other newbies' work is, well, often not very helpful.


The "Brigands" logline and press looks fascinating. I'd see it, but I'm weird.

The screenplay is available for download on the web. I forget the specific URL but if you Google it you can find it. It's a 153 page PDF monster, so be ready!

I don't think its production is assured yet. It may be stuck in development hell for all we know. It's listed as "in development" at IMDB, for whatever that's worth. Right now the script's in hands that probably can't produce it and are probably seeking someone or some prodco who can or will.

[mario_c]

Good point about notes vs coverage; there's another thread here that goes into more detail. *groan* The more you know, the more you don't know.

[KGMadMan]

Generally, this is bullshit. It isn't a matter of what "bothers" a reader, it's a matter of whether there are flaws, stuff that violates known principles, protocols, elements of dramatic structure, conventions, and the generally accepted practices of form, or outright errors.

Any reader should identify essentially the same set of flaws as the next reader, especially those that are egregious. People doing coverage should not be operating on the basis of their own tastes or preferences, they should be operating against comprehensive knowledge of the form and the accepted practices and conventions of it and an assessment of whether the writer achieved his goals and wrote a compelling, entertaining drama.

C'est la vie! :)

Newb here. I'm curious as to this argument because you touched on something I keep turning over in my head. If a script is technically sound, the writer is proficient and there are no glaringly obvious problems with structure or characters, all things being equal doesn't the style and the "edge" of a script have more to do with its quality than anything else? Assuming that all scripts are written properly (assuming, I know), maybe not even wonderfully but for the sake of argument adequately, what other quality is there to look for? If the end-goal is entertainment or thought-provocation, and somebody's 99 pages of "ex-lovers turned bitter enemies" is well-written but puts me into a coma for lack of original content, shouldn't that damage the overall judgment more than anything else?

In general I don't believe in criticizing work for being what it is against what you'd like it to be, but at the same time I've read a lot of adequate snoozers and been charmed more by scripts that were riddled with rookie mistakes but cannon-balled into fascinating subject matter. Personally, if I wrote something that got "meh" as an overall response I'd want to know that more than what I can do to make "meh" more to form.

It's all a reviewer's personal preference, I know. But I still think that's valuable information to have.

[Goodwriterguy]

Newb here. I'm curious as to this argument because you touched on something I keep turning over in my head. If a script is technically sound, the writer is proficient and there are no glaringly obvious problems with structure or characters, all things being equal doesn't the style and the "edge" of a script have more to do with its quality than anything else? Assuming that all scripts are written properly (assuming, I know), maybe not even wonderfully but for the sake of argument adequately, what other quality is there to look for? If the end-goal is entertainment or thought-provocation, and somebody's 99 pages of "ex-lovers turned bitter enemies" is well-written but puts me into a coma for lack of original content, shouldn't that damage the overall judgment more than anything else?

In general I don't believe in criticizing work for being what it is against what you'd like it to be, but at the same time I've read a lot of adequate snoozers and been charmed more by scripts that were riddled with rookie mistakes but cannon-balled into fascinating subject matter. Personally, if I wrote something that got "meh" as an overall response I'd want to know that more than what I can do to make "meh" more to form.

It's all a reviewer's personal preference, I know. But I still think that's valuable information to have.
Keeping in mind the differences between "critique" and "coverage," yes, the quality of the story most assuredly has a bearing on how a reader's going to react to the script. For example, one thing that producers have always insisted on is that a new script bring something new to the table, that it not be simply a re-hash what's already been done but offers some new take or twist on its given situations or content or subject matter.

Generally, scripts that don't do this fall into your "snoozer" category; a coverage reader reads them and will grade them down because they aren't "fresh" and don't bring anything new to the table.

Hence the quality of the execution isn't the only criteria; the perfectly executed script that puts you to sleep won't get the plaudits that a less than well executed piece will that presents something new and different while satisfying the conventions of its genre. In the context of coverage, ideas do count.

And in the coverage situation they'll count as much or more than execution, other things being equal. A prodco or studio may buy a script just to get their hands on its idea. They won't want to pay much for it but hey a sale is a sale, eh? They'll do everything they can to keep their acquisition costs low, 'cause they're gonna have to hire a writer to write the thing for them. They'll offer $25K and the promise of a "story by" credit.

Any self-respecting script consultant should advise a client vis-a-vis the quality of their idea and elaborate the reasons they think it doesn't measure up (if that's indeed their conclusion) and set forth any ideas they may have regarding whether repairs can be made and how they might be made or approached if they're possible at all.