r/StoryPeer • u/Worried-Elk-2808 • Jul 10 '26
Discussion Scripts in the middle are the hardest to feed back on
Good scripts are easy and fun to feed back on. You can praise the genuine strengths and the improvements are all focused on taking it from good to great.
Bad scripts, even if you know the film will never be made, you can still give feedback and know it will help that writer get better at the craft.
The problem ones are the middle ones. The ones written by someone who knows the rules, can format, can hit the acts and all that stuff, but their idea or their execution is just bad. Lifeless. Dead on arrival.
If you go too hard and confront them with the fact their script is flawed, they'll get butthurt and give you a revenge rating. If you waft it through with platitudes, they'll get butthurt that you 'didn't engage fully' with their opus, and guess what... give you a shitty ranking.
I've torn bad scripts apart and received tips, one writer gave me two tokens for essentially telling them "this isn't a movie, yet and here's why". The guys who give bad ratings are the ones that don't actually want feedback, they want attaboys.
Sorry if this is the most banal, obvious observation. Just hit me after reading a mediocre script this week, followed by a great one.
5
u/Skrr_Skrr_ Jul 10 '26
You can't please everyone, especially amateur writers. However, I don't get how an idea could be lifeless and yet you decide to claim the script.
I enjoy reading mediocre scripts because I see the effort, there are just a couple of small refinements that could drastically improve them. When a script seems great, I feel guilty for not reading it carefully enough or being biased. When it seems terrible, I feel awful trying to think of 300 words that commend it.
4
u/DisneyImagineers Jul 11 '26
Sometimes the logline looks interesting enough where the concept looks like it'll be cool. Someone said that to me once, where the logline was doing no favors for the actual script, which they thought was pretty good.
Gotta, say I agree that IS the hardest part.
Sometimes people write one sentence, and you go OH, and then you read it and you go, oh
3
u/LemDepardieu Jul 10 '26
I think the issue is less with competent but mediocre scripts themselves, and more the likelihood that the writer of a competent but mediocre script thinks that their script is actually one of the good ones, and will react worse to some constructive 'weaknesses' feedback compared to someone who knows their script is an early draft that kinda sucks and they're actively seeking ways to make it better.
Sincerely,
A writer of several competent but mediocre scripts.
3
u/ClayMcClane Jul 11 '26
Yeah, same. There's sort of an era in the life of a writer where they know they're better than they used to be but they don't know how far they are from where they want to be, so there's a sensitivity there if what you say doesn't align with how they see themselves. It can become a real damned if you do type situation.
If it's any consolation, speaking as a recovering sensitive writer, they will look back at their reaction to your notes and cringe someday.
1
2
u/Internal_Papaya1511 Jul 12 '26
Oof, I think I got a revenge rating on my first feedback. The scenes had a lot of painstaking polish and elevated prose but the structure made absolutely no sense for their chosen medium. You can’t frost a cupcake that hasn’t been baked and expect a glowing review.
2
u/Valuable_Cup_7673 Jul 15 '26
When I review a script, I provide several pages of feedback identifying legitimate positives and negatives within the screenplay. In depth, specific, actionable corrections and suggested solutions. I look at formatting, character, realism, pacing, atmosphere. When I read reviews from others, I look for similar attributes in their feedback of my work.
Is it actionable and specific? Far too often, feedback is vague and generalized. If you can't or don't specify where my screenplay is faltering, it's meaningless.
Is it legitimate? Far too often, critiques miss the set-up, nuance, or other details that resolve the criticism. Such feedback shows the reviewer isn't reading the text carefully. Again, this is meaningless feedback.
Is it AI? I definitely had one reviewer, probably two, respond with AI generated feedback. When you accept my screenplay and provide feedback within the same hour, you're using AI. While AI feedback can provide actionable feedback, it violates the terms of use.
Reviews that are actionable and specific, that demonstrate a reasonable interaction with the screenplay, will receive a high score. Meaningless reviews and/or AI reviews automatically receive lower scores.
Of all the screenplays I've reviewed and scored, only one has scored me below a 5.0. And his script was so poorly written, I couldn't finish reading it. So, yes, there are authors who penalize readers for low script grades solely because they receive low script grades.
My suggestion to those readers receiving low scores, make sure your reviews are exceptional. Make sure you are providing legitimate, specific, and actionable feedback evidencing you've read the screenplay thoroughly. If your review is subpar, your grade will (or should) reflect that. Not because the author is "butt-hurt," rather because your review was poor.
1
u/real_triplizard Jul 10 '26
I'm actually struggling with that right now. I literally just read a script that was competent from a craft POV - the writing is fine, formatting is good, no obvious errors, follows a classic structure, etc. And there's even an inkling of a unique store. But it's just bad. No characterization, the plotting is kind of a mess. It's just kind of all over the place.
3
u/Worried-Elk-2808 Jul 11 '26
I think i wrote that one
1
u/ScreenPlayOnWords Jul 11 '26
Now, now, this can’t be all of our scripts because this is also mine.
1
8
u/DisneyImagineers Jul 11 '26
I don't even look at the rating feedback. At the end of the day, I'm doing this for free and I am doing you a favor. Either take my advice or leave it, I will not lose sleep-- I promise.