Can I Replace A Reader's Review?

Different points of view is the point. Script Analysis is a coverage product that polls three analyst opinions. We intentionally staff story analysts with different tastes, perspectives, and life experiences. Not every story analysts is assured to see a project the same way as each other, nor the same way as the filmmakers. Reader disagreement can actually be very instructive (more on that below). But in any case, polling different perspectives is vitally important because the producers, talent, investors, and distributors who review the project will also have different perspectives and dispositions. They will each come to the project with their own unique tastes and understandings. Capturing that spread of opinions in advance is what makes Script Analysis so predictive. Where one story analysts does not connect with a given story choice, this is often valuable information. Remember, our analysts have read over 500 scripts for us on average (each!) and have helped get dozens of movies made. They each spend an average of three hours with your script versus the one hour that most agents, producers, and investors spend reading. Where one story analysts misses something you feel is important, that is often a sign that some percentage of producers/agents/investors will miss it as well. In these cases, it may be well advised to adjust the information or make it more prominent in the script so its not missed when the stakes of a read are much higher. In any event, each reaction has validity. We do not filter out adverse feedback in the analysis as it can make the analysis less predictive and therefore less meaningful as a signal in the marketplace.
​

Consensus is not required to score well. Sometimes filmmakers may feel that one reader, or one score in one section, kept their project from receiving a 70 Script Score. However, that's almost never the case. We intentionally designed Script Analysis (and the scoring algorithm) so that most screenplays will score 70+ even if not every reader loves the script. Even if two readers Pass, most scripts can score 70+ so long as at least one of the readers gives a Recommend. In this way, every round of Script Analysis gives every draft three different chances of earning a Recommend. When a draft scores below 70, it's not so much because one reader Passed, but more so because none of the three readers gave a Recommend. The goal is to get the draft to a place where at least a third of those who read feel passionately enough about the material to Recommend that it be put into production as-is. That's the kind of reaction necessary to fuel a script through all of the uphill battles necessary to get a movie made.
​

Accuracy is critical. Slated Analytics does not require - or necessarily want - its story analysts to all say the same thing. Story Analysts don't speak to one another before submitting their analysis. Each reader is encouraged to provide whatever notes and suggestions they feel will be most helpful to the project. The reason for this is that it leads to higher accuracy. Our forward-looking data set of over 400 scripts has shown that Script Scores over 70 have a much higher chance of being made, and Script Scores over 75 have a 4+ times higher chance of being liked by audiences and critics. To date, Script Analysis is the only coverage proven to predict film quality. Sticking to our process has also ked Slated to successfully executive produce over 70 films on the basis of their high Script Scores. As far as we know, we're the only filmmaker platform to pull this off. Slated-produced films have received incredible reviews from top critics, debuted at major festival, and been nominated for awards. We credit our Script Analysis for that. Following the same basic process for each submissions allows us to maximize the reliability of the Script Score and maintain its accuracy for filmmakers and prospective collaborators, investors, and distributors.
​

The scoring spread informs strategy. Just like producers, critics and audiences, our analysts rarely have a monolithic reaction to material, and the spread of reactions can provide loads of value as to how the project will perform when its sent out or the film is debuted. Where screenplays draw mixed reactions (for example, a Recommend and Pass in the same set of coverage) the data has shown that the film is also likely to also draw split reactions when released. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In independent film in particular, it is more important to make a movie that elicits strong reactions than to make a film with broad appeal. Oscar-winning directors Spike Lee and Darren Aronofsky have made award-winning films that drew split reactions from critics or split reactions between critics and audiences. In several cases, our Script Scores of the projects predicted those outcomes. By comparison, studio scripts often see Script Scores in the low 70s with three Considers, indicating no readers especially loved or hated the script. For a wide screen release and mega marketing spend, this may be just the "safe bet" a studio is looking for. However, whether being made by a studio or indie financier, it may be wise for these crowd-pleasing scripts to attach a visionary director who can elevate the story in execution and add additional layers of complexity and perspective.
​

Fairness is central. Our system is that every script gets three reads and therefore three chances of earning a Recommend and qualifying. Allowing certain filmmakers to swap out their lowest scoring reader in exchange for a new one effectively allows a "best of four" selection. This would unfairly skew the rating system across the marketplace. For that reason, do not allow filmmakers to 'swap out' reads they do not like or agree with.
​

Quality checks are done in advance. Some filmmakers may read the above and still feel their set of analysis is the exception because one of the readers did not do a good job. Since the product was first launched in 2012, we have baked a rigorous quality assurance check into our process. First, each story analyst's job takes 3-4 hours to complete. There is no way to "rush through" our coverage process or "skim" the script and complete a Slated coverage. Trust us on this: much of our current staff started out as Slated story analysts and we are intimately familiar with the process. The reason our process can't be faked is the extensive requirements in each section, including our citation requirements. Even modern LLMs have not convincingly faked or shortened this process to date. That said, we still have two additional layers of quality assurance after the readers finish their work. First, our coverage supervisor reads every word of analysis for proofreading and policy adherence. Last, our analysis manager spot-checks the analysis for scoring and miscellaneous issue prior to delivery. By the time an analysis has made its way to the filmmaker, over 18 hours of collective work has gone into it. While some may consider this overkill, we know that writers spend a long, long time on their scripts, and we want to be sure that we are giving each script the care and attention that our writers' hard work deserves.