Could Cyberspace Kill the Hollywood Reader

A New System to Put Spec Writers in Control of the Spec Market

To the countless unproduced spec script writers, they are a scourge. To studio execs, independent producers, agents and managers, they are an indispensable necessity.

The Hollywood script reader. The first -- and sometimes most formidable -- obstacle between
 your masterpiece and that highly-desired greenlight.

Ranging from unpaid interns to tremendously-skilled professionals, the script coverage they collectively dispense spans from the wonderfully insightful to the competent (yet maddeningly subjective) to the "what fucking planet did this asshole come from?"

Now, granted, a lot of times Hollywood readers have the same hostile reaction to writers. I've heard claimed that as much as 95% of all spec scripts are a shameful waste of brain cells and forests. Which is why the script readers are needed. Producers and agents simply can't wade through the mountains of crap to get to the few gems floating about the spec market. They aren't grizzled old 49ers, after all. They're well-manicured, for one thing. And they're forever swamped with more important tasks than reading bad screenplays, for another.

So they need script coverage.

But the problem for writers is what I mentioned before. The best case scenario for a great script submitted for consideration is that the reader, whether a professional or an intern, insightfully grasps what the writer intended and is also stirred by it. This is a rare alignment of fortunes, indeed, and, in fact, many a great screenplay have gone unrecommended based on that maddening subjectivity thing. Not to mention those space alien readers whose often infuriating notes are just too painful to harp on. May they suffer paper cuts to their eyeballs.

Also, because so many jobs rely upon the success of a script that is (often reluctantly) turned into a movie, the readers are set up as gatekeepers with the instructions to never let anything through that could damage anybody's career. The result is a lot of second-guessing and a hesitancy to recommend any script at all. Ever.

"There are barbarians at the gate. Keep them and their shitty dialogue out of our fortress."

 
Comments 1 - 10 of 19 Next >>
Comments
Type in Your Comments Below

Thanks Moe!

Posted on 03/28/2008 at 9:03:46 AM

This is interesting and helpful, as are the remarks of some of the people commenting.

Posted on 03/28/2008 at 6:03:54 AM

Great concept, but I echo the concern of others- namely, that people will just give low marks to all other scripts in order to have their own rise to the top. Sabotage in this industry is a realistic threat. One way to counter this is to ONLY allow positive feedback/remarks, while tracking how many views a script has had. This would leave the truly bad scripts showing lots of views but no feedback, as opposed to new entries that may lack feedback because they have few views. Members could be required to leave feedback regularly, like a quota, to ensure that outstanding scripts get noticed. Think about it- the idea has merit. "If you don't have something nice to say..." In response to Brendon, this would help readers tremendously- it would weed out bad scripts before they got to you, the reader. Imagine being able to only read above-average scripts! In your spare time you could read the allegedly "bad" scripts at your discretion to see if something got unfairly passed over.

Posted on 03/19/2008 at 2:03:02 PM

Brenden, the difference between what I propose and the way the system currently is, is that with a clearinghouse, Hollywood readers would have a place to go that has already weeded out the truely awful ones. The title of this article is misleading I suppose (but attention grabbing!) What it should say is, "Could Cyberspace Save the Hollywood Reader?" And by "save", I mean save them from the misery of slogging through the truly dreadful stuff. Yes, whether a script is good or really good or fantastic is still subjective. But whether a script is dreadful or not, is not really subjective at all. What if script readers had a place they could go where the choice is between "good, but I have to pass", "really good with a soft recommendation" and "fantastic, with a strong recommendation". If the WGA registers 50,000 scripts per year and 5% of those are good enough to make it into the database, isn't that a tremendous service to the readers? 2,500 good to great scripts to pour through and 4

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 3:03:53 PM

Thanks for the comment, Darren. I used Zoetrope for about a year (around 2005) and thought the experience was great. I met the producer there with whom I am currently teaming with on a production next month.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 3:03:31 PM

E's comments about Zoetrope are untrue. That is a workshop site between peer writers who are also readers. It is NOT where " you find people who deliberately grade scripts lower to boost their scripts up higher. " That's not how that system works.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 3:03:42 PM

Mike and TMOST, thanks for your thoughtful input. And I agree with what you're saying. For what I'm suggesting to work, it would have to be embraced by both spec writers and agencies, studios and production companies. Something nobody would have control over other than to somehow, collaboratively, create as near perfect a system as one can. To be a one-stop clearing house, it would need both groups to flock to it in the same way the general public flocked to Youtube, for example. But on a much smaller scale, obviously. Other websites that exist clearly haven't made the impact that one would hope for. A site at which the name instantly conjurs up an image of what the place is as IMDB is for movie information as Youtube is for user-provided video entertainment as Google is for search engines. So that's the key ingredient to developing a go-to spec script repository. Ubiquity within the industry. Which won't happen just be inventing the site. More elements would have to come together.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 1:03:12 PM

E, I mentioned Zoetrope at the end of the article as a sort of prototype for what I'm proposing. The difference is this would be a two-tier system designed to keep "bad" scripts out of the database. Three readers have the power to send a good script into the database. It's possible for one reader to do it alone if they really like the script that much, thus counterbalancing the vindictive reader who is out to sink the competition. A reader who continually assigns bad grades would be monitored and simply passed over for first-tier judging if their motives appear to be that egregious.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 12:03:26 PM

Not exactly for movie scripts, but this reminds me of StoryMash.com. Similar concept but more for storytelling in any format. Writers collaborate and vote on each next chapter, thus building the most entertaining fiction ever. Authors also get paid.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 12:03:55 PM

They have the same system at zoetrope.com. That place, like any other where the people who grade are in competition with each other, you find people who deliberately grade scripts lower to boost their scripts up higher. At least with Hollywood readers they have to submit competent coverage, but it's all guess work in the end. Then again, so is what makes a good movie.

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 11:03:55 AM

Comments 1 - 10 of 19 Next >>