ScriptShark - Who Can Offer an Insight?

[Sgt Spanky]

ScriptShark - Anyone have any insights into this group? They seem well connected within the industry but has anyone actually dealt with them? If so, please give us your insights.

www.scriptshark.com (http://www.scriptshark.com) if you wanna check em out.

[joecalabre]

I know a few people who have used it and found the coverage useful (although a little expensive for the amount of notes). As for success stories, I don't know anyone who has sold from a result, but those who have used it did get read requests and one person established a good working connection.

Similar and cheaper (no coverage though) is inktip.com. I personally have gotten numerous requests from using it and have been pleased with the cost/service.

As with any listing/coverage service, I don't think there is a magic bullet. A lot of the companies which use them are on the smaller end (although some biggies use them too). The good is you have an avenue to get your name and work out there, the bad is the cost.

If you think it's worth spending the money (and it won't break the bank for the month), go for it.

[SimonSays]

I think with services like this, as with anything else, the issue is not the price, but the value – what you get for the money you spend.

I think that a good script consultant can really help a writer make their scripts better and more marketable IF they know what they are doing. The problem with many of these services is that they tell you what the weaknesses of a script are, but they don’t necessarily give you any idea as to how to make them better. That’s primarily because most of these companies use “Hollywood Readers” for many of their services.

Readers are trained to say “no”. They pass on things that are not marketable or don’t work, they recommend things that are well written and have commercial potential and fit the production cos needs. It is not their job to figure out how to make something that doesn’t work work - so they don’t do it.

What most writers really need is insight that will make their next draft as strong and marketable as possible. I mean if your script isn’t strong enough or commercial enough, most writers don’t just toss it in the circular file and move onto the next one – you want improve the one you’ve been working on.

There are consultants who do this – and generally because of their background and experience they charge more money. But it can be worth the money. The Scriptbroker is good example of this. Devorah Cutler Rubenstein is a writer, director producer and she was a studio exec for years. She, personally reads and gives notes on all the scripts she gets in. She also includes a phone consultation so you can go over the notes with her and bounce ideas off her. Plus she has connections all over town and will help writers network to agents, producers, etc.

Linda Seger is also really good - she's written a lot of books including Making a Good Script Great - but her fees are considerably higher, so her services may be out of reach for most.

[kojled]

ss

thing about (good) coverage is it helps only good writers - or those who are willing to make a sincere effort to improve. difference between coverage service and competition is the mediocre script places 300th or 1400th or something in a competition and the entry fee is down the drain for nothing -- while for, say, three times the average entry fee, a mediocre script will be analyzed and writer will have feedback needed to improve the script and their ability to writer.

so - poor writer slugs away for a few years entering contests while they could accomplish more in a few weeks by sending script in for coverage. people balk at the cost of coverage but think nothing of entering 10 or 20 competitions, then giving up after a while -- when the wannabe finds himself with expensive software (now useless) and bruised ego and undeveloped ability and maybe some stories about how they once talked to a producer on the phone - after spending thousands on contest entry fees

you don't often hear of success stories from people like scriptshark, but they happen -- to people that take the coverage, apply themselves to correcting the flaws pointed out, resubmitting, getting a consider or recommend and cruising with that.

besides, success stories are rare for good reason. success comes rarely. who would expect, say, 50 people/day getting a recommend from scriptshark? or 50 hacks selling their first drafts for big $$ every day? the numbers reflect reality - few people got what it takes

the fact is most people can't write and never do anything to change that (except bitch and imply and accuse and blame). why do that? why not just send it in see what they say? then, correct cited flaws - go from there. sending in lousy scripts to competitions is playing the lotto. getting coverage on a script and making it better makes more sense to me. it encourages active, objective thinking.


zilla

[SimonSays]

Koj -

I couldn't agree with you more on every point.

The thing is for that small percentage who do have talent - a lack of knowledge and true understanding of the craft will prevent them from making it no matter what their innate ability is. And that is where a good consultant can make a huge difference.

I know of a couple of real, amazing success stories of people who've used consultants and then gone on to get major representation or in one case a 6 figure advance on a novel. I know of someone else whose play is headed for Broadway - because they re-worked the project with a consultant.

Someone without talent will obviously not achieve that kind of success - but an honorable and honest consultant will not keep milking money from someone who doesn't have the abilibty to succeed on their own. But it is really amazing to see how writer's can improve once they really understand how to make their projects fly.

A lot of people seem to feel that anyone who offers services to writers for a fee - is by definition a scammer or trying to rip them off. Or that only those who offer mentoring services for free are motivated by a desire to help writers. This is just not true.

[BROUGHCUT]

If I was going to choose a service like this then I would opt for ScriptShark myself.

I think you should just go into it with the expectation of getting good quality coverage and I'd trust their claim that they only employ decent, experienced readers. The access they promise is just an extra bang for your buck if you get lucky but it is backed-up by real contacts. The same company operates Studio System and hosts a lot of industry tracking boards. Not sure if their "spec library" for recommended scripts is online or not yet, but this is meant to be integrated with these online services so it is certainly within their means to blip the radar with good material. Also, I understand they try their best to hook you up with an agent or manager first.

[kojled]

simonsays

yes. there absolutely are rip off 'coverage' svcs out there. most of them are there only to separate the wannabe from his money. even their websites -- so obviously catering to the lowest (most desperate) common denominator. it's sad.

however, i can tell you, the readers at scriptshark know exactly, precisely what they are talking about


z

[joecalabre]

I agree. Good coverage is hard to come by and Scriptshark seems to be on the ball. What I meant earlier was that for $155, you get a very basic coverage report, which I heard doesn't give a lot of details on making the script better. I would go with the $300 notes which gives around 5 pages of solid stuff.

[Sgt Spanky]

Appreciate the insights, folks. I'm considering several options. ScriptShark being one of them.

[kojled]

going to add one more thing - that isn't often said. the reader has something no writer has - objectivity. this can be utilized to point out obvious structural flaws - i have experienced this myself. when i saw the coverage i couldn't believe i would send out a script with such a flaw. embarrassing. really, dumb beginner mistake

anyway, by definition, no writer has objectivity when it comes to analyzing their own work - not like a good reader/consultant


z

[Sgt Spanky]

Words to live by, koj.

That's exactly why I have an impartial sounding board of people I know who read my work and offer honest feedback and criticism. They know I'm not sensitive so they comment and criticise freely.

It's a great help.