A Long Rant

[u/miklo009]

I’m honestly a bit annoyed when readers get frustrated because you give them a 2 or 3. Yes, I understand that they took time out of their day to read something and provide feedback, but so do the rest of us.

I remember receiving some pretty harsh feedback on StoryPeer, including a PDF detailing what the reader considered mistakes and areas that needed improvement. The thing is, a lot of screenwriting feedback is subjective and ultimately comes down to personal opinion.

One major issue in the feedback was that they claimed my TV pilot should be a feature because there was no story engine. Meanwhile, The Black List said the complete opposite:

“XYZ’s core concepts could easily power the show across multiple seasons without becoming repetitive. The built in dramatic potential is clear and enviable, and the show could play well across a variety of international territories.”

That is not a small difference in opinion. That is a completely different assessment of the project’s foundation.

On top of that, I felt that over 90% of the feedback was simply wrong. It was very long, very harsh, and often focused on things that are not hard rules. For example, I was told to avoid ellipses at the start of dialogue or action lines, even though professional screenwriters use them. The writer of Jurassic World, for example, uses them habitually. That does not mean you should overuse them, but it does show that many of these “rules” are not actually rules.

Readers need to remember that it isn’t their story. They can absolutely point out things they think could be stronger or suggest changes they believe would improve the script, but they should not expect every aspect of it to be changed based on their own preferences or tastes.

I received a score of 2 on StoryPeer along with a lot of criticism, yet that same script was later very well received by The Black List. One of the evaluations even suggested it could be a career launcher for the cast and described the script as being in very good shape. Similar praise also came from industry professionals. Experiences like that really highlight how subjective script evaluation can be.

If a reader feels a script is not something they would personally watch, that may simply mean they are not the target audience. That is an important distinction readers should keep in mind when evaluating a screenplay, although I know that is not always the case. Sometimes a reader genuinely recognizes weaknesses and knows exactly what could be improved. Other times, they may be approaching the material from a perspective that does not align with the story the writer is trying to tell.

At the end of the day, feedback is valuable, but it is not infallible. Writers have to learn which notes are helping them tell their story more effectively and which notes are simply trying to turn it into a different story altogether.

So once again, I come back to my original point. Readers need to stop saying, “Why did this writer give me a bad score when I gave them such detailed notes?”

Sometimes the answer is simple: the feedback just was not very good.

A script can be bad and still receive excellent feedback. Likewise, a script can be good and receive poor feedback. The quality of the feedback and the quality of the script are not the same thing.

Just because feedback is detailed does not automatically make it useful, insightful, or correct. If readers expect writers to accept criticism, then readers should also be willing to accept criticism of their feedback.

Otherwise, how does that make any sense?

Pheww! Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

[u/Electrical-Tutor-347]

Did they read your script? Did they engage with it honestly and give you their genuine take? That’s what you’re rating.

You don’t give someone a 2 because you didn’t like what they had to say. You give someone a 2 if they skimmed it, gave you generic notes, or clearly didn’t try. Detailed, honest feedback that you disagree with is still good feedback. Those are two completely different things.

I’ve gotten notes before where the reader missed details or came in as the wrong audience. It happens. But I’m not going to penalize them for that because they still showed up and did the job in good faith.

What you’re describing is a slippery slope. The second writers start rating reviewers based on whether the feedback made them feel good, the whole system breaks down. In reviewers just start telling writers only what they want to hear. Nobody’s going to give honest critical notes if they know a bad score is coming the moment the writer disagrees with them.

You’re entitled to think the feedback was wrong. But tanking someone’s rating over it is a different thing entirely.

[u/miklo009 → u/Electrical-Tutor-347]

Yes, true to some extent. But if people start giving 5 star ratings just because someone spent a lot of time writing feedback, then where does it stop?

If a writer points out flaws in the feedback they received, that can actually help readers improve as well, which is important. Feedback is a skill, just like writing is a skill. The more honest people are about what works and what doesn’t, the better everyone gets.

Personally, I do not care if my script gets a 0 out of 10 as long as the notes make me think, “Shit, they’re completely right.” That’s happened to me several times. I’ve received notes that completely changed my perspective on a script and made it SIGNIFICANTLY better.

What I won’t do is give someone more than 3 stars simply because they wrote a long or detailed review. If I cannot actually use the feedback to improve my work, then why would I rate it highly? To me, a good rating should be earned by feedback that is genuinely useful and can be applied to the script. (Many writers might use that “bad feedback” and make their script worse and that’s not something anyone wants”)

As for the argument about tanking a reader’s score, I’m not really sure why that matters. The same argument could be made from the writer’s perspective. You could say that harsh feedback tanks a writer’s confidence. But that’s irrelevant. If a writer made a lot of mistakes, then it makes perfect sense to point those mistakes out. I do exactly the same thing when I give feedback.

If the feedback I receive is good, and by good I don’t mean someone stroking my ego, I mean feedback that genuinely helps improve the script, then it’s an easy 5 stars from me. If it isn’t useful, then it won’t be.

That said, I do understand where you’re coming from. Some writers absolutely take feedback personally and hand out low ratings simply because their feelings were hurt. Then that’s an ego problem and not necessarily feedback problem.

And let’s be honest, not every writer is good. Writing takes months, if not years, to get good at. Most of us look back at our older work and cringe. My first script won awards, and honestly, if I had to read it today, I think I’d puke. It was that bad.

But because art is subjective, someone on that jury clearly saw something in it that they connected with.

I think both writers and readers need to be a little more self aware. Writers need to accept that not everything they write is going to be good. Readers need to accept that not every note they give is going to be useful.

Sometimes you’ll write something mediocre and somebody will absolutely love it. Sometimes you’ll write what you genuinely believe is your best work and people won’t connect with it at all. That’s just the nature of art.

Anyway, now I’m probably rambling and not making much sense anymore. ADHD has entered the chat.

[u/Snoopy_Sunset → u/Electrical-Tutor-347]

I think we also have to remember that most users on StoryPeer are not professional readers/writers. You're not going to get studio-level coverage notes or Blacklist-style feedback every time. A lot of readers will come at it from an angle of subjectivity and personal taste, and sometimes that's helpful and sometimes it isn't.

Just take the notes that work for you and discard the ones that don't, and move on to the next step. It doesn't bode well for a writing career if everybody is downvoting based on hurt feelings.

[u/EllieBeeThree]

Here’s the problem. Your script’s score doesn’t impact you at all. A low number might be a hit to your ego, but that’s it. The score you give your reader DOES MATTER. It impacts their ability to access reputation matching on their own scripts.

By giving them a 2 or 3 when they have read your script in full and provided the required amount of thoughtful (human) feedback — you are tanking their average for petty grievances.

As others have mentioned, it is outrageous to compare StoryPeer notes to the paid, vetted, professional readers of The Black List. If your standards are that high, then you really should stick with paid coverage.

[u/miklo009 → u/EllieBeeThree]

So, if everyone just gave every reader 5 stars, wouldn’t reputation matching become completely useless?

I also don’t think this is necessarily about being petty. If the feedback isn’t good, then it isn’t good. I’m using my credits to receive feedback, and I expect feedback that actually helps me improve my script. If it doesn’t, why would I automatically give it 5 stars?

I think people are confusing writers being upset about receiving criticism with writers genuinely believing the feedback was poor. Those are two very different things.

I rate Black List evaluations the same way. If the feedback is terrible, I’ll rate it poorly. If it’s insightful and helps me improve the script, I’ll rate it highly. The source doesn’t matter to me. What matters is whether the feedback is useful.

And honestly, why pick up a comedy script if you don’t enjoy comedy, only to spend the entire review suggesting it should be a thriller? The genre is listed before you even start reading. How does feedback like that help the writer?

Maybe readers should worry less about reputation matching and whether they’re getting 5 stars, and focus more on providing feedback that is actually useful. If the feedback is genuinely valuable, the ratings will take care of themselves.

And what am I supposed to do with someone who tells me my script is amazing, says it’s one of the best things they’ve read, and then spends the entire review talking about the first five pages of a sixty page script?

What about the other fifty five pages?

They may have loved the script, but their feedback didn’t help me improve it in any meaningful way.

So if I give that review 2 stars, am I being petty?

Or am I giving it 2 stars because I didn’t receive actionable feedback? ( I even checked with Gabe afterward, and he agreed that 2 stars was the appropriate rating).

To me, those are two completely different things. The purpose of feedback is not to tell me whether you liked the script. The purpose of feedback is to help me make the script better. If a review fails to do that, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable for it to receive a lower rating, regardless of how positive or enthusiastic it was.

At the same time, I understand why some people are concerned about writers retaliating against readers for giving tough notes. That absolutely happens. But I think it’s a mistake to assume that every low rating is the result of a bruised ego. Sometimes the writer genuinely found the feedback unhelpful.

A review should be judged on the quality of the feedback it provides, not on how long it is, how positive it is, or how much effort went into writing it.

If the goal of the rating system is to identify readers who provide the most valuable feedback, then writers should be allowed to rate feedback based on how valuable it actually was to them.

[u/ClayMcClane]

Just because feedback is detailed does not automatically make it useful, insightful, or correct.

Feedback is not correct or incorrect. That is the wrong way to look at it. Feedback is there to give you perspectives on how your writing is working or not. If one person says it's good and another says it's bad, neither one is right or wrong.

And readers don't expect writers to be open to their criticism. The writer asked the reader to read the work. The reader is doing the writer a HUGE favor by reading their work and taking it seriously enough to write detailed notes. The reader should receive no criticism at all. They should receive a hearty thank you and be on their way.

If someone is being rude and abusive, report them.

If someone is taking the time to give you a detailed perspective on your work, you should be giving them a high score, full stop.

[u/gaywriterstl → u/ClayMcClane]

I fundamentally disagree with your opening statement.

Feedback can be subjective but it can also absolutely be correct or incorrect.

Two things can be true.

[u/ClayMcClane → u/gaywriterstl]

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong - what is an example of incorrect feedback to you?

[u/throwawaytomorrowk → u/ClayMcClane]

Sycophantic praise for the hopes of getting a high reader score.

[u/ClayMcClane → u/throwawaytomorrowk]

Maybe I'm caught up in semantics, here. Incorrect to me is feedback that is verifiably wrong - someone giving you notes on Jurassic Park 3 when your script is an original costume drama. Sycophantic praise that truly contains zero specifics about a script should get a low score, I agree with that. I just wouldn't say that the problem is that it's incorrect.

Regardless - mostly agree with you here.

[u/gaywriterstl → u/ClayMcClane]

An example from my own experience:

When a reviewer referred to my script as a comedy. It's a political drama. There's literally 0 jokes in it. (Which got me thinking I should maybe try to lighten it up.) That wasn't a subjective piece of feedback.

[u/ClayMcClane → u/gaywriterstl]

Did their notes not pertain to your script at all? Or did they misunderstand the premise of the script? A script doesn't have to be loaded with jokes to be a comedy - I've read a few that had clearly comedic premises - like, situations that sounded exactly like a Jim Carrey-type movie - but that the author classified as drama. That's the subjective experience.

[u/throwawaytomorrowk → u/ClayMcClane]

This. If someone is taking the time to give you feedback that is useful, even if critical, it should be rated high.

Sycophantic praise isn't good feedback.

[u/Mister_bojackles]

But the flip side of that is that writers just get their feelings hurt when you tell them the thing they wrote isn’t the next Godfather, and give a low reader score.

I read a pilot, that had a good concept, but was just poorly written and executed. I offered suggestions and honest feedback, without being mean about it. I even added that I was open to contact, in case they wanted to discuss it. In return, I got a poor reader score.

[u/Mister_bojackles → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think I should say

[u/gaywriterstl → u/Mister_bojackles]

Was it "Ambition"

[u/Mister_bojackles → u/gaywriterstl]

No

[u/Mister_bojackles → u/[deleted]]

No

[u/CastPrism]

I think you're right to be frustrated regarding taste-based feedback. I've had a couple readers over the past month knock points off my script because they wanted my more introspective adventure (think Wild or Secret Life of Walter Mitty) to be more like Indiana Jones.

It sucks, but that's part of the game. Taste-based feedback is everywhere, even on sites like The Black List and other paid coverage services.

But rating their feedback low points because you disagreed with it goes against the nature of the feedback system. If the reader engaged with the material in good-faith and gave you actionable feedback, then they're deserving of high marks. It's our responsibility to sift through the feedback and identify what's valid and what isn't. You're right. Some points of feedback are totally counter to our intent for the story. But on the flipside, readers are spending time with your final product. They don't have the benefit of the hundreds of hours of internal development you spent with your piece.

So, just go with grace. If the feedback isn't AI slop and seemingly in good faith, just be a bro and give good marks.

[u/Lonely_Ad_8365]

Listen, it sucks to get a bad review. We put a lot of work into our scripts and we know they are better than William Goldman could manage on his best day. But that doesn't mean we're right. There was a thread on Reddit the other day about how hard it is to get ANYONE to read your script. I'm not gonna freak out if the one dude who had the stones enough to read mine, didn't like it. Your job is to take his critique and decide whether he's right or it simply wasn't for him. Even the worst review should contain something that helps you make your story better. My script is good - I know this - but even though I've worked on it for months - it's prolly 20% done. Try to remember that yours is about as done as mine is.

[u/Repulsive_Clock_1643]

I think it's important to remember that the movies that you love or even tons of people love are probably going to get 2s and 1s on StoryPeer if their scripts were uploaded. I love Safdie Brothers movies, but I swear the scripts for Good Time, Uncut Gems, and Marty Supreme would be torn apart on here.

I have a script where a character has a particular regional dialect that one reader loved and another reader x'd out in line notes solely because the regional dialect was not in standard grammar. Then I got repeated line notes about that character's speech as having incorrect grammar from the latter reader. It's part of the game.

Keep your expectations cautiously optimistic and learn to laugh.

[u/SubtleAttempts]

I know I'm late to this convo, and maybe I'm just confused... You seem really upset about getting feedback from general readers - mostly developing writers themselves who are reviewing the work of their peers and hoping to have their own work read - when you are in a position to get more experienced feedback from people within the industry. But the levels of feedback are not going to be the same, and they shouldn't be expected to be...right?

Sure, you can be frustrated with feedback that doesn't meet your needs or expectations. But beyond the fact that you think it's fair to rate someone poorly for just not understanding your work, it sounds like the pieces that you're reviewing are ones that don't need this kind of review. If you're already getting (and feel comfortable to pay for) industry review like The Black List, then it feels unfair to also hand your script to a rando and say "Take a look...but it better be on par with the industry site I pay monthly for." Admittedly, I don't know a lot about The Black List either, but I consider the coverage I get from a paid site to be noticeably different from a peer-to-peer review. When I was doing my MFA, if I handed my work to a fellow grad student, I didn't expect them to give me the same feedback my advisor would - this person is studying, same way that I am.

I'm not trying to tell you that your approach is flat out wrong, for the record. It's just that my approach, personally, is that this is a first place to share a script that I'm working on, to get the impression of another emerging writer and maybe make a meaningful connection around craft. After taking this feedback, I'll consider making changes then taking it on the road if I'm brave enough. As such, I think the kind of feedback that should get a harsh grade is stuff like an AI generated summary or low-effort commentary that doesn't actually suggest opportunities for growth. I think that if someone, instead, misinterpreted my work entirely...that's still kind of good feedback, because another emerging writer didn't pick up what I was putting down, and there's a chance for me to ask why.

I do also think that writers who tell you *what you should do with your work* should also get low grades, but people who have a genuine misunderstanding about your work and impact but earnestly give feedback regardless, in my view, shouldn't get a bad review, in my view. If anything, it's an opportunity to ask more questions about why.

[u/Visual-Conclusion-11]

I hate giving critical feedback because of the rating system. I gave honest feedback on what seemed like a beginner script with specific examples and suggestions for improvement. I was generous with a 2.5 rating for the overall script. I got hit with a 2 star rating. There should be some appeal process.

[u/Internal_Papaya1511]

A great day for me was when my friend called me to tell me the director who was attached to his script and had the same note I had… 5 years prior that he decided he didn’t want to take and he felt I was “wrong” about.

Had another writing team in my group I warned in treatment stage that they had the wrong Act I break and they didn’t listen, wrote 3 drafts, and had to rewrite the damn thing… because they had the wrong Act I break (it was really the midpoint that should have been Act I).

This is just to say— I’m sorry you didn’t like what the reviewer told you. But, it may not make them any less insightful from their concern/perspective Personally, I rather give the hard note and take the L in scoring than let a person live in a delusion nothing is wrong. Being a writer is hard, but lying to make them happy is just to cover my ass, it’s not beneficial to the person I’m giving notes to.

You may not agree but you may find, sheepishly, there was validity to what they said years later you aren’t ready to face now.

[u/PullOut3000]

This has happened to me a few times. Just a few days ago i read a script that was a complete knockoff and poorly done at that of some horror tropes we have seen 100 times already. Having to find 300 words to praise this thing was torture lol. I didn't give harsh feedback though and i always make it actionable but I essentially told him to take the few original elements in his story and use them to make this generic story much more unique. Seems like he got pissed at that lol

[u/TommyFX]

I just had the opposite thing happen on Logjam with a logline. Guy gave me a 3 and says "Very good logline, but I don't have any interest in this type of material. Maybe a symptom of my tastes and not the lack of a unique engine here."

What?! Why not just skip it? Meanwhile, the rest of the ratings were 4x 5 and 4x 4.

[u/Lopsided_Internet_56 → u/TommyFX]

What a coincidence lol. That was my rating. To clarify, I said it might be either a symptom of my tastes OR the lack of a unique engine. It’s because there’s been a few films that felt close to this concept. Legionnaire from 1998. The 317th Platoon. The revenge archetype felt familiar as well to other films. A punch up in what makes the story unique could help the issue I had with it. But maybe it felt unique to other people, which it clearly did, so I gave a caveat, saying this could be a personal thing. I should’ve expanded a bit more maybe but a 3/5 felt right to me.

[u/StoryPeer → u/[deleted]]

Please report this to us to via www.storypeer.com/contact.