Screenwriting : Zoom in Person Pitch by Kelly Neff

My advice to you: just keep writing. You will meet a thousand more producers, and 999 of them will criticize you, but one will make you the next J.K. Rowling.

Thank you! I don't have any problem with my books. I didn't have to pitch my last screenplay; I just sent it to my agent who shopped it. But my agent is no longer in the trade. So this DIY is new territory. I'm learning! My instinct was not what the video showed, and apparently my instinct was correct. Rejection is not the problem here. I've been handling query rejection letters since I was 14 years old (a very long time ago), but the advice here in the vid not matching 'industry standards' as the exec said to me this morning. I'm just trying to understand and get it right.

Kelly Neff That sounds really frustrating, especially when you went in prepared and followed the guidance you were given.

Honestly, sometimes a pitch session just becomes more about the chemistry, expectations, or personal taste of the exec than the actual quality of the project or the way you presented it. That doesn’t necessarily mean you failed.

I’d try to separate delivery feedback from personal reaction. If there were specific notes about clarity, tone, pacing, or concept positioning, those can be useful. But if it just felt dismissive overall, that may say more about the interaction than your potential as a writer or filmmaker.

One thing I’ve heard repeatedly from professionals is that pitching is a skill that develops through repetition. Even experienced writers sometimes completely miss with one exec and connect strongly with another using the exact same material.

Curious was the feedback focused on the project itself, or more on how the pitch was delivered?

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that a screenplay is, first and foremost, a story that people have been telling each other since prehistoric times. If the story is interesting, then the screenplay has potential.

But when we pitch—when we present our story—we are often expected to talk about positioning, rhythm, and many other things that are not really under the writer’s control. Look at how many cases there are where a film was supposed to be released in cinemas but ended up on streaming platforms, or the other way around. That means the positioning of a film is already decided not by the screenwriters, but by company executives.

Rhythm is another example. A good editor can take the same scene and make it feel slow or fast-paced. So that also depends very little on the writer. The writer only describes what we see on screen, while how we experience it is shaped by other people.

The only thing a screenwriter can really define is who the story is for. That part is true. But everything else is largely out of their control.

That’s why I think that, in a pitch, a screenwriter’s main job is to prove and show that their story is interesting—and that it has something meaningful to say or teach.

Thank you, @Abhijeet Aade this was really helpful. (Before I became an anthropologist I was a Creative Writing major., so I understand what you're saying about feedback and chemistry).

Unfortunately the feedback was totally about delivery and not the project. I began with all the specs of it, type, title, length, etc, then was asked for an overview. I named the initial setting (Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia USA) and something changed radically in the vibe.

Thank you, Aleksandr Rozhnov! This is brilliant! In a 10 page analysis I was told not to have shot directions or wardrobe in script, even though I've read plenty with them. I see shots in my head, and have a degree in technical theatre, so I pay attention to this in film. I was told I was doing the director's job.

As someone who has done dozens of live (zoom and in person) pitches - an Exec 'tuning' out happens. I use it as an opportunity to gain experience.

As a Brit, I don't know too much about American history, but I did a quick google search. I guess it depends on the subject matter/plotline, and who you pitched to? Is it potentially a sensitivity thing?

Thanks Shane! That's how I took it. Just trying to deconstruct the experience. Did I do wrong, what can I do better?

Hi Emilia-Maria, Suffice to say, I do think it was a sensitive issue for the exec. But it's set in that place because it was IRL (this is based on a true story).

Oh I see! Have you had a sensitivity reader/exec look through it yet? Might be worth trying to find one to connect with and see what your best approach is! Good luck!

Hi Emilia-Maria! I had 3 beta readers during the process, including my old boss at Colonial Williamsburg who has been involved with major film crews/directors there, and nobody flagged it. Establish scene in 1981. I thought people now would be upset about the WW2 flashbacks and wargaming, not a pretend-Colonial reconstruction!

Kelly Neff That’s actually really interesting, because it sounds less like the project failed and more like the exec instantly formed a perception based on the setting or what they assumed the tone/project would be. Sometimes people hear a location, period element, or genre cue and immediately start mentally categorizing budget, audience, pacing, or marketability before the full vision is even explained.

And honestly, that can happen incredibly fast in pitch environments. A single phrase can shift the energy of the room before you’ve even reached the emotional core of the story.

The fact that the feedback centered on delivery rather than the material itself also suggests the project may not have truly been evaluated on its own merits yet. That’s frustrating, but it also means this one interaction probably shouldn’t define your confidence in the screenplay.

I also think your anthropology and creative writing background could actually become a strength in future pitches because it likely gives your stories a deeper cultural and human observation underneath them. Sometimes the challenge is simply learning how to communicate the emotional hook before the logistical or historical details shape expectations too early.

Wow, Abhijeet Aade great insights! Thank you so much! That's definitely what happened and they really weren't interested in hearing the emotional hook. In that instance, I think my background was a detriment, not that it was said directly. I think considering logistics (and more personal prejudices) took it off the table for them.

Your advice here is pure gold.

Thank you sincerely!

Kelly Neff Thank you so much and honestly, I really don’t think one difficult pitch experience should make you doubt the project or your instincts. Sometimes meetings reveal more about the listener’s filters, assumptions, and risk calculations than the actual potential of the story itself.

And unfortunately, once someone mentally shifts into “logistics mode” too early, they can stop emotionally receiving the narrative before the real heart of it even arrives. That can happen with period settings, academic backgrounds, certain genres, international stories anything that triggers assumptions about complexity, audience, or budget.

But what stood out to me from your description is that you do seem deeply aware of the emotional architecture underneath the project, and that matters enormously. The challenge may simply be restructuring the pitch so the emotional engine reaches them before the analytical part of their brain starts categorizing the project.

Also, your anthropology background honestly sounds like something that could give your storytelling a richer observational depth over time especially in character psychology, systems, ritual, culture, and human behavior. That can become a creative strength rather than a weakness in the right rooms.

Really glad the conversation helped, and I genuinely hope you keep going with the project.

Wow, @Abhijeet Aade! All of the above with this project! period settings, academic backgrounds, certain genres, international stories anything that triggers assumptions about complexity, audience, or budget. Great insight there! Thank you so much! It deconstructs the pitch interaction wonderfully.

I hope this conversation of ours helps everyone here!

Kelly, as someone who sits on the other side of these meetings, I want to offer a reframe that might help you stop second-guessing both your delivery and your material.

Sometimes a pitch goes cold and it has nothing to do with either. There's still a generation of execs operating on the old Hollywood model: hook me in the first ten seconds, dazzle me, sell me hard. If you came in methodically (specs, title, setting), that style can read as low-energy to someone expecting a performer. It's not a reflection of the project. It's a mismatch of expectations about what a pitch is supposed to feel like.

And when the vibe shifted at "Colonial Williamsburg," that exec probably mentally filed it under "period piece, complex, expensive" before you got to the emotional core. That's their risk calculation talking, not a verdict on your writing.

The craft problem and the pitch problem are two completely different things. A lot of strong writers conflate them after a bad meeting, and it sends them down a rabbit hole of unnecessary self-doubt.

What I'd take from this: next time, lead with the emotional engine before you give them anything to categorize. What is the story really about at its human core? Start there. Make them feel something before their analytical brain starts doing the budget math.

Also worth remembering: just as all writers aren't created equal, neither are execs. The person across from you in that room has their own blind spots, biases, and limitations. Never take the feedback of any one individual as gospel. One exec's cold room is just one data point. Keep going and don't be discouraged!

Thank you so much, Katrina, for this extremely valuable and helpful insight! It really makes things easier for me, both now and moving forward! I'm very grateful!

Kelly Neff Thank you so much and honestly, I hope so too. I think conversations like this are valuable because a lot of creatives quietly internalize difficult pitch experiences as personal failure, when sometimes the reaction is being shaped by assumptions that form long before the full emotional vision of the project is even heard.

What’s fascinating is how quickly industry psychology can enter the room the moment certain elements are mentioned period settings, international context, academic material, budget perception, genre expectations, audience assumptions. Sometimes the pitch stops being evaluated emotionally and starts being filtered strategically within seconds.

But understanding that dynamic can actually become empowering because it helps writers and filmmakers rethink how they frame the emotional core of a project first.

Really appreciated this exchange as well. These kinds of discussions honestly help all of us become better communicators and storytellers.

Hi Abhijeet Aade! I agree about the psychology of pitches (and other such meetings) and this is why it's so important for writers not to take reactions personally.

Thank you (and everyone!) for your valuable insights in this important conversation!