Coverage Reports

At the top of a coverage report there is a form each reader fills out. In that form appears the title of the script, the name of the production company evaluating the script, the name of the executive assigned this script, the name of the agent and agency of the script’s provenance, the genre of the script, the era the script is set in, how many pages are in the script and the name of the reader. Phew.

Next appears the logline and for most companies, under that, a comment summary or “brief”. The brief is usually culled from somewhere within the coverage comments and is a quick – or brief, get it? - summary of the reader’s thoughts on the material. Here is a real brief altered slightly for confidentiality’s sake:

This espionage action/thriller is full of (sort of) exciting scenes and an abundance of technical knowledge but has a rather boilerplate feel to it; the bad guys could be replaced with Saudi’s, or even the East Germans of yesteryear and the same story could be told. Scratch that – has been told. A mundane plot combined with characters that are two-dimensional does not raise this script above the rest of the crowd.

The executive will probably stop reading the coverage right about here. There are other circumstances that might make the exec read the synopsis or more of the comments and that might be something like: he or she had been really excited about the premise and are curious why the reader clearly didn’t like it. Maybe the script came highly recommended and they just have to read more about why it apparently sucks so much. But in general – the review of the coverage would probably stop right after reading that brief. Not all briefs are this negative, obviously. Here’s a more positive one, again altered slightly for confidentiality:

A powerful mostly true story, XXXXX tells a tale which many of us may not have known. And that’s a problem. King XXXX is a monarch of such distant times past that most of us have never heard of him, making it difficult to connect to the material. There is nary a negative thing to say about the script itself, this is top drawer work by top drawer writers; the story of friendship and betrayal in such dark times is compelling. In fact, the script is a real learning experience. Therein lies the rub - the material is a bit academic.

Now that’s a better snapshot of how an executive then will decide whether to read the whole coverage. Hmm. The material is dull. But the company was looking for a historical epic, how dull is it? The reader says the writer is top drawer and there is a story of friendship and betrayal. Maybe with casting and a great director this dull, educational script will actually become an entertaining movie. And so the exec will make their own call on that. The reader’s work here is done.

The next thing to appear on your coverage is the grid. Down the left hand side is:

PREMISE
STORYLINE
CHARACTER
DIALOGUE

And across the top we have: Excellent, Good, Fair and Poor

Most grids look alike. Some substitute “premise” for “idea”, some use “narrative” not “storyline” and some have a box for “originality” and for “budget” (ratings being high, medium, low). Most readers try to avoid rating something “poor” – it’s kind of mean. “Fair” is bad enough, believe me. And many readers will avoid giving out “excellent” like candy. It has to be pretty excellent.

Next on the coverage comes the biggie:

RECOMMENDATION FOR PROJECT:
RECOMMENDATION FOR WRITER:

It’s unusual but not entirely unheard of to have a consider project and pass writer. More often, pass both. Sometimes, pass project consider writer. This means the script was written very well, but the material is not exactly up the company’s alley. But the writer really is quite gifted and might be a fit for assignments coming up. The writer’s “voice” was in keeping with the company. This is entirely a judgment call on the reader’s part. Which is intimidating at first, for readers. What? Little old me decides the fate of this script and this writer at XXXX production company? Yep. Production companies hire readers with care and because executives are so busy, they trust that a “pass” is indeed a “pass” and that a “consider” is a “consider”. One way a reader can get weeded out very quickly is if they give two many considers or recommends. Because this means the exec will now not only read the coverage carefully but the script as well. And if the exec disagrees – I mean, really disagrees, then the reader may get a talking to about just what “consider” means for this company. The standards are incredibly tough. When I first began reading, I gave “considers” a bit too easily and yes indeed, I got called on the carpet. Not fired, just told that I needed to be much tougher. That was all I needed to hear. Readers need to cover their behinds because giving a “consider” is tantamount to putting your reputation on the line as a reader. You may be asked to explain why the script got the rating you gave it. Now, that wouldn’t happen for a “pass”, that’s the thing. A “pass” is a “pass”. Why? Because there is just too much material floating around to warrant a second look at a “pass”.

Next on the coverage report comes the synopsis. Different production companies have different ideas about how detailed the synopsis should be. In general, for a standard script, the synopsis shouldn’t be more than 3 pages or so. The emphasis on detail is in the first and third acts of the script. The set up and the resolution, in other words. Executives want to know what happens but they also want to know how it happens. Readers try to write synopses as accurately as possible and as entertainingly as possible. If we loved the script, we want the synopsis to reflect how great the story is. If we hate the script, the synopsis will be a bit dry. The entertainment value of the synopsis is in direct relationship to the entertainment value of the script. Usually we write the synopsis both from memory and with the help of notes or highlighted pages.

Next comes the “Comments” section and this is usually fairly short – maybe a page to a page and a half. The brief already said, right up front, what the reader thought of the script. The comments will back up the overall recommendation of “pass”, “consider” or “recommend” and is organized like this:

First paragraph: a brief overview, always starting with something positive then segueing into a very polite laundry list of why the script got the rating it got. So that first paragraph might read something like:

An inventive take on the childhood of an influential rocket scientist raised in the 50’s is written playfully and with a lot of heart. Unfortunately, the script falls short of its potential; soft premise, two-dimensional characters and a fuzzy narrative make it impossible to really get wrapped up in the plotline and logic issues trouble the script.

Okay I just made that up on the spot. But you get the point. Now the comments will back up each negative comment, in order, with examples. The final paragraph will just summarize the reader’s take once more. It’s a classic, high-school paper way of setting up your argument, backing it up with examples and wrapping up with a summary.

Here are some of the elements that readers evaluate when they read the script – mind you, they would absolutely not be listed like this in a coverage, but this is more or less the check list. And please note, the way these elements are discussed is not academic or scientific, but rather from a pretty basic point of view: was it entertaining, did it make sense?

Premise & Genre: Premise might be soft, or it might be really original. The genre may or may not be what the company is looking for.

Narrative/Structure: The narrative is how the story is told; is it original and fresh? Does the writer have a great “voice”? Is it paced well; is it a page turner? Structure isn’t often referred to as such; writers with repped scripts that made it all the way to a production company don’t often have trouble with structure but it happens. Mentioning poor structure in a coverage is an absolute kiss of death for the writer and the script. Bad or missing structure means this writer is not ready for prime time.

World: Did the writer establish a “world” for the script that the reader believed? This is more likely to come up in a fantasy, sci-fi or slapstick comedy script but not exclusively so. World is not usually mentioned in a coverage unless the writer has some pretty big “buys” that the reader – well – didn’t buy because it didn’t make sense in the world.

Conflict/Stakes: Did stuff happen to drive the story forward? Was there a sense of building conflict and tension? Was there something hanging in the balance in the end that made the reader really care about getting to the last page to see what happened?

Characters/Dialogue: Coverages will almost always mention character work – whether it is really great or really awful. A writer who can write great character and dialogue is probably going to get a “consider” writer even if the premise is not for the company at the time. The ability to write great characters and dialogue is the brass ring for aspiring writers. If you do nothing else well, you could still build a career off of this talent. Thing is, it tends to go hand-in-hand with other screenwriting skills, so don’t go trying to be some kind of character-savant.

Scene work/Action Lines: Oh man, if you have to note this stuff in a coverage, that’s bad. Again, just as structure, above, this falls under basic execution of craft and here’s the thing – if the execution is good, it becomes invisible. If it’s bad – then I have to note that your page or scene work sucks as do your action lines. Death knell for script. Bad page work basically means sloppy, cluttered pages, overlong scenes, dull scenes, typos, misspells, inactive scenes and sequences.

Logic: Stuff just didn’t add up.

Theme/Tone: Theme and tone may not always be mentioned, only if the theme is really beautiful and timely. Great themes in scripts are often a little invisible; it just really affected the reader with a sense of universal resonance. There is a connection with the material on a subconscious level. It’s a little ephemeral. When you read the script and when all is said and done, no matter how big the action sequences, or how scary some of the set pieces were, if you are left with the feeling that none of it really mattered – that’s because theme was not in the building. Tone will usually only be mentioned if it’s uneven. If tone is appropriate there’s no need to bring it up. This means that if you have written a bouncy little romcom and then you have X-rated sex scenes, I will be pulled out of the story – because the tone didn’t match. Of if you have a horror script with a long, romantic, upbeat romantic sequence. This could work. Or it might feel like some script pages got mixed up and I’m in a new story now. This would be a tone (and narrative) problem.

When I do my consulting as the Script Whisperer, I bear all of these elements in mind; it depends on the writer. A real beginner I might actually make a laundry list so the writer has a sense of how they did in each area. For a writer with more experience, I will only point out and dwell on the elements that are problematic. It’s really a writer by writer decision.

Production company coverages are a distinctly different beast than a story analysis for a private client. Prodco coverages are bottom-line oriented and not about hand-holding or getting into too much detail. Prodcos do not care how the writer got to the bad place; they simply want your work gone. Alternatively they don’t care how many years you’ve worked to get to this beautiful place, they simply want to buy your work. It’s not personal.

Consultants multi-task. We want you to know how your work would be received at a production company so you have a snapshot of how you compare to other writers, but we also want you to be at a whole new level of your writing through this experience. So we do hand hold and we do care. That’s why I like doing private consultations so much more. I have a stable of writers who are outrageously good and do trot scripts in for reads where and when I can. A slew of my clients are going to kill in the competitions this spring. I can feel it. And even the more beginning writers I work with end up feeling pumped and inspired to do better next time.

Reading for a production company is easier in a sense; it’s cut and dry. No strings, it’s not personal. But sometimes it is a little heartbreaking because you can see how hard a writer tried. But it’s not personal. Ouch.

If you enjoyed this post, follow me on Twitter or subscribe via RSS.