One of the most important steps for a writer looking to submit their scripts to a competition, or push their script to the next step, is to receive feedback from an outside source. Is the script in good shape? What can be improved? How might you build on an already strong idea? This feedback could come from a friend or trusted colleague, but the best approach is to seek out coverage from someone with fresh eyes to your script, an unbiased reader. This is a great way to know your script is being subjectively critiqued. For those unaware, script coverage is the analysis and review of a screenplay. Getting coverage on your script is incredibly vital to the writing process because it helps you narrow down what is working and what you might need to cut ties with.
WeScreenplay is a great service for screenplay coverage because it’s fast, affordable, and popular amongst professional & emerging writers. They have quick turnaround, and all WeScreenplay readers have at least a year of experience reading for a major studio, production company, agency, or manager.
“Put your best short script foot forward by getting notes from our professional readers who have produced short content and are passionate about short-form storytelling.”
WeScreenplay
Shorts scripts have become a great way to start writing, try new genres, or to really find your voice as a writer. As you know, Killer Shorts is a short screenplay competition, and we have always recommended writers get feedback on their scripts before submitting. Ideally, you have a writers group where you can swap scripts with other writers for free (if not, check out The Screenwriters Network discord server). Receiving coverage on your short scripts is very important before submitting to a screenplay competition like Killer Shorts. This will ensure your script is in the best place it can be.
WeScreenplay was kind enough to give us free coverage for 5 writers to review and experience. We have chosen five of our Killer Shorts finalists, from previous seasons, to review the service. All scripts submitted were horror shorts, so we cannot speak to what their coverage is like for other genres, but we’d imagine it’s pretty similar.
WeScreenplay Coverage
Coverage is delivered within 72 hours. Prices range from $59 for 2 full pages of creative notes, to $139 for more comprehensive and detailed development analysis from an experienced Hollywood script reader.
There are different options, but for this experiment, we used the Bespoke notes option. It normally costs $79.99 and includes:
- 72 hour turnaround time
- 2 pages of detailed notes
- Character, Plot, Structure, Dialogue, and Concept Analysis
- A Pass, Consider, or Recommend rating
- An overall impression that will highlight extra factors like voice
- Qualitative scores to help compare your progress
- A customized marketing blueprint based on your short film script goal. Choose between:
- GOAL #1: For self-producing
- GOAL #2: To use as a proof of concept for a feature or to sell to a production company
- GOAL #3: To use as a genre sample
- 24-hour Rush coverage available during checkout
Now let’s get to the reviews:
The Reviews
Thank you again to our participants for testing out the coverage! Writers Christian T., Gene D., Jason R., Mark R., and Katie Z. agreed to take part in the free WeScreenplay coverage reviews. Here’s what they have to say:
Did you receive 2 pages of detailed notes as promised? If more, please explain.
Christian: I received more than 2 pages, it felt like the reader really loved the script and had some very thought provoking ideas on how to help.
Gene: I got about 6 pages (the doc was 8) of notes, interspersed with larger text boxes that probably makes the page count a bit higher than people might assume (it might be 4-5 pages without those large boxes taking up space—but that’s still more than 2 that they promised so it’s all good).
Jason: Oh yeah! My reader really dug in and gave me 4 ½ pages of story notes before even getting to other items such as readability, budget potential, and overall score. I was pleasantly surprised that I received a whopping 9 pages in total for a 14 pages script.
Mark: Yes. They did quite well considering it was only 8 pages long.
Katie: I received almost 4 pages of detailed notes, broken into the same sections as WeScreenplay’s feature coverage: Opening Thoughts, Characters, Plot, Structure, Dialogue, Concept, Final Thoughts
Were you happy with how long it took to receive your feedback? How long was it? Was it 72 hours business days, or did you receive it on a weekend?
Christian: I got it a full day before the 72 hour mark.
Gene: It came in less than 72 hours. The speed, and the fact I could tell the reader read the entire script and gave their thoughtful opinion on many points (e.g. plot, character, structure, etc.), would make me try this service again, perhaps for a feature script if that’s offered, and definitely for any short I’m going to produce in the future to get a good temperature check.
Jason: Yes, I submitted on a Thursday afternoon and got back on a Saturday afternoon. I should point out that in between, I received an email from Wescreenplay that in the nicest way possible said (and I’m paraphrasing here) “You should get your notes soon. In the meantime, you should mentally prepare yourself for an ego bruising. Just remember this feedback is meant to help you…and oh, you also asked for it, Bub.” Nice touch Wescreenplay.
Mark: I submitted it Saturday afternoon and received it back Tuesday night and I’m happy with that.
Katie: I was very happy about the turnaround time – I received my feedback in less than 48 hours.
Which goal did you choose, and what was the final ranking your script received?
Christian: I chose Goal #2: To use as a proof of concept for a feature or to sell to a production company. My script ended up getting a pass.
Gene: Goal #1: Self-producing. I got a pass with my script placing in the top 43%.
Jason: I went with Goal #1: Self-producing and my final ranking was a pass.
Mark: Goal #3: Genre Sample. Consider.
Katie: I chose GOAL #3: To use as a genre sample. My script got a pass.
Based on the goal you chose, did you find this aspect of the coverage useful? (ie, were they good tips on self-producing, or using this as a proof of concept?) If yes, can you tell us a specific example of something useful they said or information provided?
Christian: I think it was useful. Many of the notes are pushing me to do “more” with the cultural elements of my script. I think it will really help the script to do it, but it’s a little unclear how far I should go or push it in regards to the short itself.
Gene: The “tips” they included as far as how to self-produce the short were spot-on, in the sense that I’d already thought of all of those before I wrote it. Those notes were among the most positive in the script, so it’s nice to know that writing with a known location and preferred cast in mind, made it highly producible.
Jason: Yes, there were sections of the script coverage that have recommendations based on budget constraints. Such as cutting some unnecessary characters and reconsidering certain locations. For example, in my story some of the action takes place in an office with a handful of background employees that could be costly to shoot.
Mark: The reader thought this was an excellent horror genre sample but did not give me any notes on how I can elevate it to a higher score, so although I am very pleased they enjoyed the script so much and gave it such praise, I’ve no constructive criticism or suggestions for improvement to help my screenplay to stand out more.
Katie: This was one area where the coverage let me down. The reader didn’t provide any tips for using this script as proof of concept. Despite receiving a Pass, all of the notes in the “marketing blueprint style” and “marketing blueprint genre conventions” sections were extremely positive. It was a little confusing to have everything in this section labeled a success, but still get a Pass with no additional suggestions for marketing.
Do you feel the reader read your script in its entirety, or did it seem like they may have skimmed it? If so, can you explain why you feel this way?
Christian: It felt like they read the script multiple times and wanted to give careful critique.
Gene: I think they read it. I think in places they didn’t get what I was going for. My character descriptions weren’t obvious enough for the reader to realize that two of the characters are actually demons, and this “diner” is the portal to hell. That’s on me, so I’ll make that clearer.
Jason: I feel like my reader read my script more times than I have read my script. Considering some of the boneheaded mistakes they caught, I’m left slightly embarrassed.
Mark: The reader not only read the entire script, I felt they understood every nuance, every bit of subtext, pretty much every message I’d poured into that script. It’s like they were inside my brain!
Katie: I feel the reader read my script in its entirety.
Did the reader identify any core issues with your script? Did you agree with their findings?
Christian: “What are the purposes of these choices? What do they say about what you’re trying to say? How do they represent White vs. people of colors’ cultures?”
The core issue it seemed that they found was the script didn’t go far enough, and I should add more specific details to the story.
Gene: They said the protagonist isn’t working as a protagonist, because the reader views her as a villain, and that therefore I should refocus on another character (her victim). I get that could be a valid criticism, but quite frankly, I get this criticism only when the protagonist is female. I’ve never had a reader tell me this when the protagonist is male, so that makes me think it’s the reader, not my characters. (Unless the idea is that I can’t write female characters, which I also don’t believe.) And suggesting that because the protagonist does something “bad,” they can’t be a protagonist, is simply not true.
Jason: I submitted a script I knew needed some work after multiple revisions and mixed reactions. I felt the reader identified a few places I was already concerned about, and I wholeheartedly agree with their assessment. They also made few suggestions on how to potentially fix some of these trouble spots. There were a few places where I feel like we disagreed on the tone or character development considering this was a short horror/comedy story.
Mark: There were no core issues, no issues at all identified in fact. My ego loved this, but my self-esteem knows there must be issues there, otherwise it would have been a Recommend and not a Consider.
Katie: The reader felt that the final “message” of the script was a little muddled. Although I disagree with the metaphorical lens they used to read the story (technology vs. nature), I agree that the ending could have a stronger emotional core than just fear and dread. The reader also pointed out that the script could use a stronger arc for the main character. I don’t have a lot of experience writing shorts, so this was a good note to keep in mind.
Did your reader provide any useful notes, or point out anything to you that will help you improve the screenplay? Was the feedback constructive, or encouraging?
Christian: “There is room to delve even deeper into their characters here. […]” The note suggested to build on the idiosyncrasies of the characters and to use visual cues to heighten an already solid character choice.
Notes like these are great. They help me expand on my idea that was already there and find the note behind the note. It shows that they understand, and they gave constructive encouraging notes. With many notes, it is really helpful to see what works, and how I may want to expand on it. Sometimes it’s not just things that aren’t working but what things that are working can be reinforced.
The reader thankfully recognized how scenes work within the context of the piece and how a specific scene can heighten or foreshadow another. Again, these notes were specific, helpful and encouraging.
Gene: Yes, it was constructive and encouraging, except for the parts where it was clear they didn’t get what I was going for.
The reader assumed that my protagonist was a villain, not that my clearly-cheating-creep-of-a-customer was the villain who literally gets what’s coming to him (both in the title and in the logline). For that I can only surmise that the reader is male and didn’t see anything wrong with the villain’s behavior in the story. That bothers me. Because that’s not a problem with my story so much as a problem with a potential audience member. I can’t help if someone views a male character as a hero when he’s clearly the villain who gets punished for being a cheat – I don’t know how much clearer I could have made it than the title, the logline, and the story itself.
I will definitely rewrite it, especially because it’s a short and it won’t take me forever, and would consider getting feedback from WeScreenplay again before I sink any money into producing it. But I would hope, again, that the next story gets a reader who’s able to understand what a villain is, and that protagonists don’t have to be likeable to be protagonists.
Jason: There were definitely notes that were useful, such as story structure, character development and of course catching tiny discrepancies that creep in with multiple re-writes. In other areas the feedback wasn’t practical for a short script, such as adding additional scenes to explore a character’s background or add context that would extend page count.
Mark: When I wrote this, I felt it was the best script I’d written in ages and the notes gave me load of encouragement. It was a real confidence boost in my abilities at a time I sorely needed it.
However, there was no constructive criticism of any element which would help me improve the script. My difficulty with this is the unadulterated praise in the notes is not reflected in the overall score and if no issues are identified, how can I improve it? I was in the top 16% percentile overall, all my scores were excellent or good and yet it was only a consider. It would help if I understood their scoring mechanism.
This isn’t anything new or a problem with Wescreenplay, I see this a lot in feedback services.
Katie: I think the most useful feedback I got here was about the emotional arc of the main character. By the end of the script, I wanted to capture the dread of being selected for something you would never choose to do. It doesn’t even matter if that something is “good” or “bad” or somewhere in between, the point is, it’s against your will. I think the overall story builds nicely to that point, and explores some deep fears about reality along the way. But this coverage reminded me to take a step back and look at the journey of the main character. For the ending to have more of an impact, we need to see her do more – to grow or change in some meaningful way.
* WeScreenplay is dedicated to exceptional service provided to writers. “If a writer doesn’t receive constructive feedback from their coverage, these are likely situations we would offer a new read for great 24/7 customer support, and are happy to provide rereads if something doesn’t meet our standards.”
Please summarize how you feel about this coverage in 2-5 sentences:
Christian: This coverage was great and I think it really helped reinforce the things I was already thinking about and strategize to simplify or reinforce existing ideas. It was great to hear people thinking in a similar way to the way I was thinking, and that the ideas I am playing with are coming through in the script and it makes sense.
Gene: It’s given me food for thought in how to revise this particular script, not a lot of new information about how to produce it (nothing that I didn’t already know), and warned me that my protagonist’s POV needs to be clearer.
Jason: To be fair, I feel like this might have been a tough script for my reader. It is meant to be a horror comedy, so I took a lot of liberties parodying horror tropes (and willing to admit probably not all of the jokes landed). The reader seemed a little upset for example that my ghost wasn’t following usual ghost rules and had a very specific suggestions on how the ghost should be responding to the main character. (It made me wonder how many actual ghosts the reader knows.) Other than not following ghost protocols, I did get the sense my reader did enjoy the story and generally wanted to help me improve it. There were several re-structuring tips and helpful grammatical catches I’ll be sure to implement.
Mark: A real confidence boost from a reader who understood my story, characters, and subtext at a level I can only dream of when submitting to competitions and producers. However, without any suggestions for improvement or issues identified, I am unable to elevate the script to achieve a higher score.
Katie: I thought this coverage was helpful in a lot of ways. There were some things the reader really connected with, and I got great feedback about my visuals, formatting, readability, style, character dialogue, etc. There were a few notes that I initially thought were unhelpful, since it seemed like the reader had missed what I was going for. Ultimately, I think those notes will be useful when I go back through the script. Knowing which elements didn’t come across the way I intended will help me to strengthen the story.
Did your reader say anything particularly nice about your script that left a lasting impression on you? Feel free to quote them here.
Christian: “This is the horror story we need right now and always. I absolutely cannot wait until you turn this into a polished feature, start a bidding war with execs over it, and it drops in theatres. I will be first in line waiting to watch.”
This was the opening line and it was very encouraging, and it has made me very excited to make this short.
Gene: The parts that left a lasting impression weren’t particularly positive, so I don’t feel I need to share those. There was nothing mean, just a lot of indications that the reader didn’t get what I was going for, but found it okay as far as it goes and producible on an extremely low budget.
Jason: Yes, even with its flaws, the reader started out by stating “It is certainly an entertaining read with a completely unexpected twist at the end.” Hey, I’ll take it.
Mark: The notes are full of wonderfully nice comments. Here are some examples:
“It may sound blasphemous to some, but I truly believe what Todd Philips and Scott Silver achieved in 122 minutes of Joker, the writer of this script has managed to achieve in less than 8 minutes.”
“The plot moves at a lightning speed. There is not a moment of dullness or confusion. There is not a single character that is useless. The descriptions are short and to the point. This is an allegory but still manages to tug at the strings of our heart. It is elegant and nuanced. In horror genre, the writer has managed to create something tragic and extremely touching.”
“The writer has done something remarkable with a concept that has been done so many times. The craft shines on every page and this short script can be used a brilliant sample to showcase writer’s talents. One hopes to see writer’s work soon in bigger format and on a bigger scale.”
Katie: I was pleased that the reader thought this would stand out among horror scripts. At the end of the feedback, they said, “That fearful atmosphere has been created successfully in every count. But what makes this script stand out in the horror genre is the philosophical discussion that it undertakes. It is not the external forces that create the fear here, but the inner thoughts, the daily habits. This makes us ponder over our lives, makes us question our choices. That is a success for this script.”
Was there anything about the coverage that you didn’t like?
Christian: I’m very confused about how the percentages and numbers are calculated. Many of the notes I received seemed minor or encouraging to go a little deeper, but the numbers and the rating of PASS don’t seem to reflect the exuberance and excitement the reader had based on the notes and the way they applauded the script.
It would be great to get an explanation of the points, to see what the notes they gave meant to the overall impression and score. This could also help identify what I need to work on most. Or perhaps have a score guide with the notes, so we can understand how the readers are scoring.
Jason: As mentioned above, I do think the reader should keep in mind the limitations of adding additional scenes for a story written to be a short film. I’m also still a little unclear about the rating system, and the final pass/consider/recommend ratings. The final breakdown of your script rank on the last page was probably more useful as a final snapshot of what the reader thought.
Mark: As mentioned above, the lack of balance between the written notes and the score, plus lack of suggestions around improvement.
Katie: The reader seemed intent to find a 1:1 metaphor in this script for themes of “going back to nature” to escape our overdependence on technology/workaholic culture. Reading the story through that lens, the reader was upset by how the character they viewed as the stand-in for nature wasn’t the “good guy.” I wrote that character to be wild, strange, and frightening – akin to an old story about humans being taken to faerie realms. The reader wanted this character to represent nature and be nurturing, to exist in order to make the main character a better person. It’s a big aspect of the story that I feel the reader completely missed. On the plus side, it made me realize there was more I could do to make my own themes come across better.
Final Thoughts
Killer Shorts hopes these 5 reviews encourage writers to try out WeScreenplay’s short script coverage services for your own scripts. As you read in the reviews above…hopefully… everyone has a different experience when using a script service. Ultimately, outside coverage is always a good idea when getting ready to polish your writing, submitting to a screenplay competition, or sending off to managers, agents, or producers. Though there was some universal confusion on the rating system, all 5 of our reviewers agreed they got something beneficial from this process and left with some food for thought on how to improve their scripts.
WeScreenplay has been rated Hollywood’s #1 script coverage service because they are dedicated to providing resources for all levels of writer. They are a great resource in moving to the next step in your screenwriting career.
The Killer Shorts contest is currently accepting submissions for Season 3! Consider using the WeScreenplay Shorts Script coverage service to perfect that script before submitting.
* The WeScreenplay links are affiliate links. Killer Shorts may receive a small commission if you purchase any products or services. This money helps us pay our blog writers.*
Check out WeScreenplay’s Service here.
WeScreenplay on Twitter.
WeScreenplay on Instagram.
