Screenwriting : The argument.... Film Festivals/Contests vs Coverage by Mike Briock

These services that offer coverage are no more than fellow writers offering their opinion on your writing. Now that's exactly what producers do when covering a script. The difference is if they like your script they have the power to buy it. It's nice to get positive "coverage" from a service but they can't buy a good script. If a writer makes changes based on coverage does that really make the script more sellable? Or is now just closer to the likes of the specific reader? What if a producer who has the power to buy the script doesn't like that version? I'm with Oliver on this. Writers should write the script they want to write and send it to producers who have the power to purchase the script they like.

On Contests: You win Nichol game over. On coverage: Joey Tuccio!! That's all I got. And the beat(s) go on!!

Mike, you give us a concise answer. I only ask very close firends, who are writers, to provide coverage for me. I feel it is very good to have another set of eyes to help during the writing process. Now there are two types of coverage - one for editing purposes and the other for an objective viewpoint for the Narrative as a whole.

Go for the COVERAGE, Mike. Unless you have a script that you know it's ready to pitch, here at S32.

• Coverage Sure Has Its Benefits There are 55 execs/producers/managers in the Stage32 Coverage Camp. There are some serious heavy-hitters in there. If you can get 4 -6 notes from, say Augustine Calderon (just to name one) for $250, that's a great deal. If you can get 6-8 notes plus a 30-minute phone call for $400, that's a great deal. I think most "developing writers" lack in areas of pacing and characterization. Structure/Story Plot is probably the first element people learn - how to structure a screenplay. Character development is probably second. Characterization, which is entirely different than character development, is something that I as a developing writer struggled with quite a bit. I struggled with pacing as well. Both of those areas are part of the coverage package here. I think a developing writer would probably benefit tremendously from such a package given by established industry pros - and especially if they face the same developmental paths and struggles that I encountered. + Competitions Sure Have Their Benefits You enter a script into a contest, and can finish in the finals or outright win it. That certainly, at the very least, is something nice to have on your resume. Some producers will only read such scripts. At the very best, the prizes include sitdowns with execs, and now you have your chance to really impress someone. Maybe they'll hire you. Maybe they'll option or buy your script. Most of the Page and Nichols winners have jobs in the biz now, even though most of their scripts haven't been made into movies - at least not yet. Those are some serious benefits. + Coverage Notes May Vary in Degrees from Person to Person That kinda goes without saying. Most reputable movie critics reviews vary in degrees from person to person. I'd imagine, and would even bet, that the reputable people doing the coverage here would have pretty similiar conclusions if elements of a script lacked a high degree of professionalism and had big holes in certain specific elements. I'd also bet that if someone's script was absolutely perfect and salable "as is" in the coverage person's eyes, that they would recognize that and tell the person that, too. Good luck, bro! And just in case anyone asks "what's the difference between characterization and character development", here is a link to a pretty good website that addreses characterization (and all other literary devices). http://literarydevices.net/characterization/

Thanks for the above link, Bill. You are the man! My man!

I think Bill wrote a very generous and accurate response. Here are a few additional points. -To use a Business School term, it depends on your "pain point." If the script is pro-quality, and if your pain point is ACCESS, then a personal referral from a friend in "The Business" is the best way to gain access. Short of that, a prestigious contest win is typically the next best way to gain access/eyeballs/credibility. If you place in the top tier of the prestigious contests, managers will proactively reach out to you. If they don't proactively reach out to you, then you can query them and tell them you won XYZ. The contest will give you a lot of credibility, and managers will give your letter a long, hard look if you've placed in a top contest. It might lead to an introductory meeting and/or being officially signed. -To conquer the problem of access, you can also participate in pitch fests (including S32 pitching). However, if you don't have some kind of statement of your credibility, you may be at somewhat of a disadvantage when pitching. It's harder to separate yourself from the pack without some kind of statement of credibility. -If your "pain point" is execution or relevance in the marketplace, then you may benefit from NOTES. If the script is not yet pro-quality or at the top of the amateur heap, then you might be able to improve on your own, or you may need development support to get it there. If you're really green, take an class (e.g. an online class at UCLA). If you're getting there, seek the help of a script consultant for NOTES, not COVERAGE. -I highly recommend script consulting programs in which you have a TWO-WAY DIALOGUE with the consultant, which covers gaining clarity on your intent and strategic solutions to help you execute upon your intent. -For those who are trying to enter Hollywood, I recommend consultants who are active in the market and who understand current market behavior. (For those in the true indie space, you don't need a market-savvy consultant.) If your consultant believes you're up to market standards, and if the consultant is active in the market, he/she will help you meet managers. Don't believe me? I consulted for a non-US director and his writer. They were able to get their low budget horror movie made. When they visited the US, I introduced them to several managers and an agent. They ended up with a choice of FIVE DIFFERENT managers who all wanted to sign them. They successfully signed with Circle of Confusion and Paradigm. I have another guy at Gersh. S32 is also well-connected. The platform has enabled a number of writers to get optioned and signed. I don't have the numbers, but you can look for the stats that Joey posts. So it depends on your pain point. Great script, no access? Win a CONTEST. Not so great script? Get development support via NOTES. Staying totally indie? Trying the "Kevin Smith" way of self-financing? Then just do it and godspeed!

I also want to add that development is an iterative process. Duh, right? First Draft, Second Draft, Third Draft, etc. The iterative process is a KEY REASON why coverage/notes are not the same from one draft to the next. If done well, the earliest notes address the most fundamental/core issues, "high level," or "big picture" concerns - appropriate to early draft development. 5 drafts down the road, hopefully, the script has improved, your intent has become better defined, etc., and the latter notes will no longer have to address fundamental issues. Hopefully, you're moving towards "fine-tuning." Another reason why "coverage" can vary from one reader to another is because you're not having a two-way conversation (like you would in a script consult), and the reader has to make assumptions/generalization/guesses about how to advise.

An addendum to CJ's great post: -COVERAGE SERVICE - As CJ said, this type of coverage should not be viewed as "absolutely right." If done well, coverage should typically offer you OPTIONS, not a unilateral path. Here's why: The paid analyst has NOT had a conversation with you to learn your intent, and it's not his place to TELL YOU HOW YOU SHOULD EXECUTE YOUR STORY. It's YOUR STORY, not his story. Let's say your script is about a man stranded on the moon. He reads the script and thinks, "There's a cool indie version of this story like Duncan Jones's MOON and a big budget, tent-pole studio version of this story like Ridley Scott's THE MARTIAN. But this writer has chosen a spot in the middle, and going for the middle yields bad odds." In this case, the analyst's comments should articulate this fork in the road and offer some commentary for either path. (Because it's COVERAGE, not NOTES, it's not obligated to offer suggestions or constructive "how-to" advice.) Or maybe your script reads somewhat like a satire. The analyst may comment, "This comedy treads so much into the territory of satire, and it's clear that the writer is a skilled satirist. One path for future development might be to embrace the satire since it's so well done. However, satire occupies a very small part of the market. This writer has a choice - go with your strong suit and write a bracing satire, knowing that it won't be seen as mainstream, or pare back on satire and focus on a more mainstream comedy." -STUDIO/PRODUCER COVERAGE - Now let's say your script is read by a studio or producer, and their in-house reader (whether pro or intern or junior exec) writes coverage. This coverage takes on a TOTALLY DIFFERENT VOICE from a Coverage Service. It is written with THEIR BRAND in mind. For example, "We in the Fox Story Department see an indie version like MOON and a studio version like THE MARTIAN. Since we are Fox, these comments will obviously be written to direct the project toward the Fox version, which is THE MARTIAN version." The internal use Fox coverage and external use Fox notes that the studio development execs will present to the filmmaking team WILL TELL YOU HOW TO EXECUTE THE STORY because it's no longer just YOURS, it's FOX'S AND THE FILMMAKERS' STORY. This does not mean that you no longer have your own voice - that's why you're making the big bucks for adapting THE MARTIAN! -SCRIPT CONSULTANT NOTES - The Script Consultant should determine if your intent is to write MOON or THE MARTIAN. Then I would advise you on market strategy, and then we set out on the path that YOU SELECT WITH MY ADVICE. So, Coverage Service coverage should be quite "neutral," if you will. Studio/Producer coverage will not be neutral because it will be geared toward making your project a good fit for that particular home (or for saying why it's NOT a good fit). Script Consultant services are meant to identify your intent and help you execute it. My one disagreement with CJ: "[Contests] suit writers with excellent technical expertise who write generically appealing scripts the best." I would like to think that many contests judge a script "on its own terms," not on general appeal. However, I can't claim that as fact. The only contest I've judged for is The CineStory Foundation, a NONPROFIT in which no judges get paid. The only compensation is a free dinner (in 2015, it was Chinese take-out) to the judges who were invited to the "Final 10 scripts" judging round. We at CineStory do not look for "generically appealing scripts." Our 2015 winners: 1st place - a period story based on real events, maybe bested suited for HBO Films and their "real" stories 2nd place - written by a man from Sierra Leone about the tough life of a young girl, definitely niche 3rd place (tie) - one "end of the world" sci fi action/thriller, and one Coen Bros-esque NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN kind of story The 2013 winner won with CAKE, which went on to star Jennifer Aniston, a very niche movie that only got a small release. Of the above, only 1 of the 5 qualifies as a "generically appealing" concept. I consulted for a Screencraft horror category semifinalist who had written a B-movie creature feature, and that's certainly not a "generically appealing script" in 2015. Maybe decades ago when movies like THE BLOB were getting made. Based on winners' loglines, I don't think that the Nicholl, Austin, Page, or Slamdance favor "generically appealing scripts." We're all looking for the next wave of pro writers, whose material succeeds on their own term, and who can write in their ballparks - whether those are indies like CAKE or more generically appealing. *I don't think "generically appealing" is a bad thing. I just don't think that contests are looking for it.

As Homer would say, "d'oh."

For what it's worth, if I'm hearing pitches at the Fade In pitch fest, and if I'm considering taking a look at your script, I'd be more strongly swayed if you tell me that you are a finalist in a prestigious contest than if you tell me your script has received positive coverage. I think the contest credential is more convincing than having received good coverage. Both help because they tell me you've passed some filters already. I'm also more inclined to try to give you some tailor-made advice if you show me that you're doing as much prep as you can for yourself. As they say, people help people who help themselves. I'm in the same boat; if I need help from a buyer or an agent, I have to show them that I've done all my homework, and I'm ready for them to come into the process.

Here's a metaphor for why simple coverage is a blunt (not sharp) instrument. Imagine asking an interior decorator to come look at your living room and write up a brief decorating proposal for you, but imagine yourself NOT having a two-way conversation with the decorator. Not discussing your intent for the living room, your budget, your needs, your preferences, any coupons you might have for furniture buying. It wouldn't work, right? Sure he's a professional and would likely offer some ideas that are better than your own. But wouldn't the proposal be 100x better for you if you had a two-way conversation with the interior decorator, told him your budget, your needs, your preferences, etc.? That's why a two-way conversation with a Script Consultant is also typically significantly more effective. If you need more help with craft, then you might be better off with a screenwriting instructor or book author. If you need more help with overall strategy, meaning both creative and market, then you might be better off with a producer/consultant who is active in the market.

This is a great thread. Thank you Regina and CJ for your well written comments. I have learned something, again. The content here is excellent. I believe in both coverage and contests. I have entered a script in both. I did all the necessary research to find the right contests and coverage for my type of story. The feedback was that it is basically shit. Now here's where all the years of training I have had kick in. It is not personal. I have learned to focus only on what I can control. This keeps me positive. I will keep working on it until it is good, but what I will never do is feel bad about it as I'm doing the work. I have spoken to so many screenwriters now, and what I hear is how personally they take their creativity. I am not judging here, but rather commenting on how I see creatives shoot themselves in the foot. They put themselves behind the eight ball and never seem to understand that their negativity eventually kills everything. Each time I enter a contest or pay for coverage, I am treating it like an acting audition. I surrender all control and hope for the best. The place I am in right now as a writer is that I need to work much harder and get much better. I simply don't have anywhere near the knowledge I need to play in Hollywood yet. That is the main thing I learned from the contests I entered and the coverage I received.

Hi Andrew, would you care to share why you've always opted for coverage, not notes? To each his own. But I wonder why coverage has been more advantageous to you than notes.

I haven't gone thru this whole thread but I just want to reiterate the difference between Coverage and Notes! I think professional notes from those experienced enough to give them are a vital part of the process. Coverage is what interns learn to do on Day 1. And while it can be helpful, was always meant to be written so that an execs boss didn't need to read the script.

Hi Regina, I was sticking to the topic of the thread. I've actually done everything in terms of feedback. What I learned is that I don't even know enough about screenwriting yet to use the feedback properly, so I am just writing now about everything to get to know myself as a writer.

Hi Andrew, thanks very much for taking the time to reply to my pestering!

Thank you for all this great information. I'm at the point where I know I need to start getting some professional input into my script and this has given me a lot to think about. I didn't really understand the difference between coverage and consultation (being very green in the writing part of the industry) but this helps a great deal, and what I've taken from it thus far is that consultation is probably the best first step towards getting my scripts market ready. I say this because until I have good feedback on my writing I don't really know where I am from the perspective of the market, but going too far forward (in terms of coverage or contests) could actually give a script a negative reputation before it's gotten started, whereas what I gather from this thread is that consultation is really a better developmental tool.

Hi Brian, I'm going to quote a line that Andrew Bee so generously shared above: "What I learned is that I don't even know enough about screenwriting yet to use the feedback properly..." Everyone has been in his position before. Having a Story Analyst WRITE coverage in a vacuum, and having you READ coverage in a vacuum are often not helpful. Just look at what Andrew says. Whether it's a S32 reader or someone like me or Danny Manus, have a two-way dialogue. I can't tell you how shocked I've been by how story analysts and writers have misinterpreted each other when they're working in a vacuum.

So that was a 'yes'? :) I agree that consultation is a better process right now (at least in my situation) as it does provide that two-way dialogue you're talking about. Thanks for the advice Regina. It is more appreciated than you know.

To any newbies on S32, this is also a good thread to consider reading. Thanks, and break a leg!