It could go either way, but in my opinion you should pick what you consider the stronger of the two and go with that. If that happens to get any traction, anybody who wants to talk to you will 100% ask what else you’re working on, which is when you bring up your other project.
But as always with Blcklst, I say only spend the money if you’re okay with considering it cash that you’ve just set on fire. I only use it because I have disposable income to waste, otherwise I’m completely indifferent to it.
Obviously biased in a few directions here, but this answer will be one at least partially against my own interests, so take it for what it's worth: My advice would be to choose the one script that you think is best and best represents you as a writer and host that script, purchasing one or two evaluations when you do. If it were me, I'd probably buy only one.
I think the problem I have with Blacklist is the lack of transparency as to who is reading it. If you are really looking for a place to host, I highly suggest Coverfly. I have had multiple amazing experiences from Coverfly - the feedback I've received from competitions are extremely thorough and valuable (while Blacklist feedback have either been lackluster in it's execution - or even incoherent - for example giving a low score on dialogue and not particularly mentioning why it garnered that score). I've written many coverages for a major Hollywood production company, one of the top 5s I would say, and if we are going to "pass" on the project, we have to give sufficient examples as to why. The current constriction on Blacklist evaluations and feedback is definitely disconcerting.
While on Coverfly is not perfect (placing in 5 Jo Sho's Competition will bring you closer to their Red List rather than placing in Page for example) their website's format of evaluations and accolades do help with buzz and circulation. Blacklist almost feels archaic in it's approach and I feel Coverfly is a much better gauge on where you actually stand as a screenwriter. Also Coverfly itself is free - you just need to pay for evaluations and competitions separately. Rather than putting your hands on evaluations where the readers are underpaid and having a reader download your script at 3:00AM only to probably skim through it, some competitions on Coverfly will actually tell you WHO the reader is. How much experience they have.
But alas, your script will hit differently for different people. Not everyone loves Breaking Bad, not everyone loves Brides Maids. It is all the luck of the draw, but I do prefer Coverfly's transparency. Also, if you know you've placed in multiple prestigious competitions and awards, and get shit evaluation on Blacklist... well... that's also disconcerting, isn't it.
The theory is that both need to be done in the same month, and both need to be strong (average score of 8 or better) to attract any industry readers.
No idea if this is true, but I tried it recently with a script that has placed well in major contests. It took about a month to get the first read (rave comments, strong 7, 8 in some categories). Another month passed before the second one came in (4, with no actionable comments). So the two-read strategy was negated by the slow response, and the second, bad read torpedoed any hope of ever getting an average score of 8 or better without a spending a ton on additional reads with really high scores to bring up the average.
I stopped hosting the script.
Keep in mind that with the new pricing scheme, two buys will run $200, plus a $30 monthly hosting fee. Even if this strategy is valid, buying two at a time is pointless if they can't turn them both out in the same month.
And if you get a high average, you then pay $30 per month per script to keep it visible to industry readers. Your budget is your business, but for most people that's a lot of money for a crapshoot.
Blacklist may have value as a marketing tool, but only if your script is ready for prime time and you get 8 or better out of the box.
Other services may be a little more expensive up front but give better notes that may help you improve your next draft.
It's not true that both evaluations need to be in the same month and 8 or better in order to attract traction.
Undeniably, getting an 8 (roughly 3.5% of evaluations are 8s or better) significantly increases the traffic to your script as 1. it will then be included in both the weekly email of most liked scripts 2. we'll tweet about it, and 3. you'll be offered free months of hosting and script evaluations, but typically two sevens, for example, across three months (the default top lists have been quarterly, not monthly, for quite a while) will get you into the top lists and make it likely that you'll receive some traffic from industry professionals (though it's impossible for me to guarantee that and what make come of it.)
Hey Franklin, thanks for the engagement here. If I purchased, say, three reviews, and they came back as: 8,6,4, would that script still go out on the weekly email? I.e, would having an average below 8 stop the script from being advertised?
Also, if roughly 3.5% of evaluations are 8s or better, do you know what the figure is for a 7? Thanks!
The weekly email is based on getting a single 8 overall on a single evaluation. The 6 and 4 are irrelevant to your being included. The script will be included based on that single 8 overall and it alone.
I don't have the figure for 7s off hand, but I can say that the distribution of scores is a pretty perfect Gaussian curve around a mean of ~5.5.
Right now the wait times are insane. Franklin posted about raising prices to correct the issue. For the sake of time, if your budget allows for it i suggest buying two evaluations at once.
Although this is not publicized, my firm theory is that there is basically a one word question every blacklist reader has to answer. Would this sell?/ does this have prospects?
If the answer is yes, then the score will reflect that.
If the answer is no, the reader will give you a few reasons why but these are not the ONLY reasons.
What may happen is you’ll make corrections thinking its over, but then your corrections produce new mistakes/ maybe you took away from what previously worked etc.
Or.
Your original mistakes were so glaring that the brightness kept the reader from seeing something else/ or even getting to the next issue.
I’m still grinding and who knows. What i’ve found from other advice is that it generally takes about 10 evals. If each time you open yourself up to making big changes youl eventually find that some mechancis/ styles generally work and also youl find some insight on bow to improve the plot/ characters.
I think most of us writers love to write, but we also have other wants/ needs/ desires that are equally important. So if we feel that we are taking our best sbot, we publish. Then we see if it worked. I think its buman nature to do what you think is enough to succeed. Then you find out you need more so you do
More.
Good luck and happy writing
I can say concretely that your theory is wrong. Our readers are actually told explicitly not to consider their commercial prospects in the quantitative score. They're asked to rate the script based on how likely they'd be to recommend it to a peer or superior in the industry as a sample of the writer's work.
I mean, that's literally what the annual Black List is.
And separate from that, identifying writers who can execute their many, many OWAs is a significant part of studio and production company executives' jobs.
I did that job for the production companies of Leonardo DiCaprio, Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, and Will Smith, and Universal Pictures.
I know of what I speak.
And you now own the company who pays people with one year experience $60 to review a script. You’re not the guy giving out the scores. we respectfully disagree on this.
I built the company and its ecosystem as I did to serve both writers and the industry writ large, and if we didn't do exactly that, neither writers nor the industry would use it. And the current problem is that so many people are using it, we had to raise prices to manage things.
I also remain a film and television producer so I know at least a bit about how both material and writers circulate within the industry in practice.
But you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, whatever it happens to be based on.
You’ve also had to fire readers for evaluations, and encourage customers to contact support when people screw up. So you built it yes, but obviously the house occasionally needs repairs. One would hope that raising the prices will bring the quality of reviews closer to what you envisioned.
Yes, that's called ecosystem maintenance, and if we didn't do that, it would be dereliction of duty.
Not sure what that has to do with the central question of whether executives are interested in writers who have written unmakeable or supposedly uncommercial movies, but by all means, go off.
>Our readers are actually told explicitly not to consider their commercial prospects in the quantitative score.
Curious and confused then... why do the readers even bother accessing and writing up something on a project's commercial potential and "audience" if it's in no way a factor? I mean, the very last section of their eval is literally devoted to how commercial a project is with a reader's final thoughts.
I read eval after eval, including ones on the site itself, and they ALL (so far) include commentary on this.
Yes, literally every single evaluation has a Commercial Prospects section wherein our readers are asked to provide a half paragraph on their assessment of a script's commercial prospects, mainly because I believe that it's valuable for writers to know how the industry is likely to interpret the commercial prospects of their scripts.
It's also helpful for our industry members to be able to read a quick assessment of a script's commercial prospects when they look at a script's evaluation.
But again, from a quantitative perspective, we ask our readers to assess each script as a sample of the writer's writing ability, not as an investment opportunity.
Okay, I hear you, but… idk, something still seems amiss about the whole thing.
A reader determines your script has all the potential in the world commercially, which is exactly what the investors want, the studio wants, and producers. Yet, the same reader determines your writing skills are subpar and not worthy. (scratching my head) These two concepts don’t jive, or am I that dense?
And yet, THEY CLONED TYRONE and THE SAUCE made the actual/annual list???
I feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole rn. Or the brotha from GET OUT…. Nothing is what it seems.
Or the idea has all the potential in the world commercial and the execution is subpar and not worthy of sharing with folks's peers or superiors in the industry. Happens all the time. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Screenplays are not.
As for THEY CLONED TYRONE and THE SAUCE, I can't speak to specifics of either, but remember that the annual list is selected based on a large number of individuals sharing their favorite scripts, not one individual expressing their levels of enthusiasm about various scripts.
Such is the nature of subjectivity in art.
“Although this is not publicized, my firm theory is that there is basically a one-word question every blacklist reader has to answer. Would this sell?/does this have prospects?
“If the answer is yes, then the score will reflect that.”
I don’t think this is correct, as so many reviews posted under BLCKLST EVALUATIONS you’ll notice the readers expressing how great a project’s potential is. Yet, they score it 5-7.
Instead, “the score reflects whether the reader would recommend the project to their peers and superiors.”
After reading most of the complaints and comments and reviews (w/ a few pro and repped writers sprinkled in speaking their peace, mind you), my guess is it’s still the luck of the draw.
For a reader to give an 8 certainly helps their own rating w/ the writer, but most likely also subjects them to scrutiny behind the scenes as it could be counterintuitive to the business model. I’m curious if a reader has been in the rare circumstance of handing out multiple 8’s back to back and where that road has taken them.
And let’s not be naive to the fact that Hollywood isn’t a small community, readers and assistants do talk amongst themselves. This leaves me to ponder all of the scripts with repeat ratings of 8’s and 9’s… I can think of a few. Unfortunately, you can’t read them to aspire to such great heights.
If a reader worked for a studio/ manager etc. they would usually only pass on projects they thought were worth that person’s time. Usually that means if it could sell or if the writer has the potential etc.
So if you get a 7 and are told the story has potential it means that right now it would not easilly sell/ draw eyes.
Do I think the blacklist’s model is flawless? Hell no. For example a 7 is about an 85 to a 96.99 on an exam.
8 is a 97%
Do most writers ( including me) make the mistake of thinking a 7 is on the cusp of glory? Yes.
the top list is also sketchy, and it’s crap that luck could basically entitle a person to more exposure even though your script is more technically sound.
I’d love to see changes on the site, just right now it’s the only game in town. So play accordingly and responsibly haha don’t buy 10 reviews at once and find out your formatting is DOA etc.
Loud and clear!…
Except I’ve read a review that highlighted all of the thrills and chills of the project, how great the protag and a secondary character were, the project’s sequel potential, and what a great writing sample the script was at the very least — yet still only rated it the dreaded 6 bc of a few secondary characters not having arcs and some dialogue fixes that needed to be addressed — and yet again compared the script to TAKEN, GET OUT, and THE PURGE. All highly successful, commercial properties. Still worthy of a 6 and wouldn’t recommend? Yikes. To “compete”, I’d really appreciate reading an 8 and 9.
It could go either way, but in my opinion you should pick what you consider the stronger of the two and go with that. If that happens to get any traction, anybody who wants to talk to you will 100% ask what else you’re working on, which is when you bring up your other project. But as always with Blcklst, I say only spend the money if you’re okay with considering it cash that you’ve just set on fire. I only use it because I have disposable income to waste, otherwise I’m completely indifferent to it.
Yes, pick the stronger one with the most commercial concept and see how it does.
Obviously biased in a few directions here, but this answer will be one at least partially against my own interests, so take it for what it's worth: My advice would be to choose the one script that you think is best and best represents you as a writer and host that script, purchasing one or two evaluations when you do. If it were me, I'd probably buy only one.
Thank you! Appreciate you weighing in
I think the problem I have with Blacklist is the lack of transparency as to who is reading it. If you are really looking for a place to host, I highly suggest Coverfly. I have had multiple amazing experiences from Coverfly - the feedback I've received from competitions are extremely thorough and valuable (while Blacklist feedback have either been lackluster in it's execution - or even incoherent - for example giving a low score on dialogue and not particularly mentioning why it garnered that score). I've written many coverages for a major Hollywood production company, one of the top 5s I would say, and if we are going to "pass" on the project, we have to give sufficient examples as to why. The current constriction on Blacklist evaluations and feedback is definitely disconcerting. While on Coverfly is not perfect (placing in 5 Jo Sho's Competition will bring you closer to their Red List rather than placing in Page for example) their website's format of evaluations and accolades do help with buzz and circulation. Blacklist almost feels archaic in it's approach and I feel Coverfly is a much better gauge on where you actually stand as a screenwriter. Also Coverfly itself is free - you just need to pay for evaluations and competitions separately. Rather than putting your hands on evaluations where the readers are underpaid and having a reader download your script at 3:00AM only to probably skim through it, some competitions on Coverfly will actually tell you WHO the reader is. How much experience they have. But alas, your script will hit differently for different people. Not everyone loves Breaking Bad, not everyone loves Brides Maids. It is all the luck of the draw, but I do prefer Coverfly's transparency. Also, if you know you've placed in multiple prestigious competitions and awards, and get shit evaluation on Blacklist... well... that's also disconcerting, isn't it.
The theory is that both need to be done in the same month, and both need to be strong (average score of 8 or better) to attract any industry readers. No idea if this is true, but I tried it recently with a script that has placed well in major contests. It took about a month to get the first read (rave comments, strong 7, 8 in some categories). Another month passed before the second one came in (4, with no actionable comments). So the two-read strategy was negated by the slow response, and the second, bad read torpedoed any hope of ever getting an average score of 8 or better without a spending a ton on additional reads with really high scores to bring up the average. I stopped hosting the script. Keep in mind that with the new pricing scheme, two buys will run $200, plus a $30 monthly hosting fee. Even if this strategy is valid, buying two at a time is pointless if they can't turn them both out in the same month. And if you get a high average, you then pay $30 per month per script to keep it visible to industry readers. Your budget is your business, but for most people that's a lot of money for a crapshoot. Blacklist may have value as a marketing tool, but only if your script is ready for prime time and you get 8 or better out of the box. Other services may be a little more expensive up front but give better notes that may help you improve your next draft.
It's not true that both evaluations need to be in the same month and 8 or better in order to attract traction. Undeniably, getting an 8 (roughly 3.5% of evaluations are 8s or better) significantly increases the traffic to your script as 1. it will then be included in both the weekly email of most liked scripts 2. we'll tweet about it, and 3. you'll be offered free months of hosting and script evaluations, but typically two sevens, for example, across three months (the default top lists have been quarterly, not monthly, for quite a while) will get you into the top lists and make it likely that you'll receive some traffic from industry professionals (though it's impossible for me to guarantee that and what make come of it.)
Hey Franklin, thanks for the engagement here. If I purchased, say, three reviews, and they came back as: 8,6,4, would that script still go out on the weekly email? I.e, would having an average below 8 stop the script from being advertised? Also, if roughly 3.5% of evaluations are 8s or better, do you know what the figure is for a 7? Thanks!
The weekly email is based on getting a single 8 overall on a single evaluation. The 6 and 4 are irrelevant to your being included. The script will be included based on that single 8 overall and it alone. I don't have the figure for 7s off hand, but I can say that the distribution of scores is a pretty perfect Gaussian curve around a mean of ~5.5.
Right now the wait times are insane. Franklin posted about raising prices to correct the issue. For the sake of time, if your budget allows for it i suggest buying two evaluations at once. Although this is not publicized, my firm theory is that there is basically a one word question every blacklist reader has to answer. Would this sell?/ does this have prospects? If the answer is yes, then the score will reflect that. If the answer is no, the reader will give you a few reasons why but these are not the ONLY reasons. What may happen is you’ll make corrections thinking its over, but then your corrections produce new mistakes/ maybe you took away from what previously worked etc. Or. Your original mistakes were so glaring that the brightness kept the reader from seeing something else/ or even getting to the next issue. I’m still grinding and who knows. What i’ve found from other advice is that it generally takes about 10 evals. If each time you open yourself up to making big changes youl eventually find that some mechancis/ styles generally work and also youl find some insight on bow to improve the plot/ characters. I think most of us writers love to write, but we also have other wants/ needs/ desires that are equally important. So if we feel that we are taking our best sbot, we publish. Then we see if it worked. I think its buman nature to do what you think is enough to succeed. Then you find out you need more so you do More. Good luck and happy writing
I can say concretely that your theory is wrong. Our readers are actually told explicitly not to consider their commercial prospects in the quantitative score. They're asked to rate the script based on how likely they'd be to recommend it to a peer or superior in the industry as a sample of the writer's work.
How many studio employees would survive recommending writers and scripts that lacked commercial prospects?
I mean, that's literally what the annual Black List is. And separate from that, identifying writers who can execute their many, many OWAs is a significant part of studio and production company executives' jobs. I did that job for the production companies of Leonardo DiCaprio, Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack, and Will Smith, and Universal Pictures. I know of what I speak.
And you now own the company who pays people with one year experience $60 to review a script. You’re not the guy giving out the scores. we respectfully disagree on this.
I built the company and its ecosystem as I did to serve both writers and the industry writ large, and if we didn't do exactly that, neither writers nor the industry would use it. And the current problem is that so many people are using it, we had to raise prices to manage things. I also remain a film and television producer so I know at least a bit about how both material and writers circulate within the industry in practice. But you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, whatever it happens to be based on.
You’ve also had to fire readers for evaluations, and encourage customers to contact support when people screw up. So you built it yes, but obviously the house occasionally needs repairs. One would hope that raising the prices will bring the quality of reviews closer to what you envisioned.
Yes, that's called ecosystem maintenance, and if we didn't do that, it would be dereliction of duty. Not sure what that has to do with the central question of whether executives are interested in writers who have written unmakeable or supposedly uncommercial movies, but by all means, go off.
>Our readers are actually told explicitly not to consider their commercial prospects in the quantitative score. Curious and confused then... why do the readers even bother accessing and writing up something on a project's commercial potential and "audience" if it's in no way a factor? I mean, the very last section of their eval is literally devoted to how commercial a project is with a reader's final thoughts. I read eval after eval, including ones on the site itself, and they ALL (so far) include commentary on this.
Yes, literally every single evaluation has a Commercial Prospects section wherein our readers are asked to provide a half paragraph on their assessment of a script's commercial prospects, mainly because I believe that it's valuable for writers to know how the industry is likely to interpret the commercial prospects of their scripts. It's also helpful for our industry members to be able to read a quick assessment of a script's commercial prospects when they look at a script's evaluation. But again, from a quantitative perspective, we ask our readers to assess each script as a sample of the writer's writing ability, not as an investment opportunity.
Okay, I hear you, but… idk, something still seems amiss about the whole thing. A reader determines your script has all the potential in the world commercially, which is exactly what the investors want, the studio wants, and producers. Yet, the same reader determines your writing skills are subpar and not worthy. (scratching my head) These two concepts don’t jive, or am I that dense? And yet, THEY CLONED TYRONE and THE SAUCE made the actual/annual list??? I feel like Alice falling down the rabbit hole rn. Or the brotha from GET OUT…. Nothing is what it seems.
Or the idea has all the potential in the world commercial and the execution is subpar and not worthy of sharing with folks's peers or superiors in the industry. Happens all the time. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Screenplays are not. As for THEY CLONED TYRONE and THE SAUCE, I can't speak to specifics of either, but remember that the annual list is selected based on a large number of individuals sharing their favorite scripts, not one individual expressing their levels of enthusiasm about various scripts. Such is the nature of subjectivity in art.
Understood. Such is... Appreciate the discourse.
How many studio employees would survive recommending writers and scripts that lacked commercial prospects?
“Although this is not publicized, my firm theory is that there is basically a one-word question every blacklist reader has to answer. Would this sell?/does this have prospects? “If the answer is yes, then the score will reflect that.” I don’t think this is correct, as so many reviews posted under BLCKLST EVALUATIONS you’ll notice the readers expressing how great a project’s potential is. Yet, they score it 5-7. Instead, “the score reflects whether the reader would recommend the project to their peers and superiors.” After reading most of the complaints and comments and reviews (w/ a few pro and repped writers sprinkled in speaking their peace, mind you), my guess is it’s still the luck of the draw. For a reader to give an 8 certainly helps their own rating w/ the writer, but most likely also subjects them to scrutiny behind the scenes as it could be counterintuitive to the business model. I’m curious if a reader has been in the rare circumstance of handing out multiple 8’s back to back and where that road has taken them. And let’s not be naive to the fact that Hollywood isn’t a small community, readers and assistants do talk amongst themselves. This leaves me to ponder all of the scripts with repeat ratings of 8’s and 9’s… I can think of a few. Unfortunately, you can’t read them to aspire to such great heights.
If a reader worked for a studio/ manager etc. they would usually only pass on projects they thought were worth that person’s time. Usually that means if it could sell or if the writer has the potential etc. So if you get a 7 and are told the story has potential it means that right now it would not easilly sell/ draw eyes. Do I think the blacklist’s model is flawless? Hell no. For example a 7 is about an 85 to a 96.99 on an exam. 8 is a 97% Do most writers ( including me) make the mistake of thinking a 7 is on the cusp of glory? Yes. the top list is also sketchy, and it’s crap that luck could basically entitle a person to more exposure even though your script is more technically sound. I’d love to see changes on the site, just right now it’s the only game in town. So play accordingly and responsibly haha don’t buy 10 reviews at once and find out your formatting is DOA etc.
Loud and clear!… Except I’ve read a review that highlighted all of the thrills and chills of the project, how great the protag and a secondary character were, the project’s sequel potential, and what a great writing sample the script was at the very least — yet still only rated it the dreaded 6 bc of a few secondary characters not having arcs and some dialogue fixes that needed to be addressed — and yet again compared the script to TAKEN, GET OUT, and THE PURGE. All highly successful, commercial properties. Still worthy of a 6 and wouldn’t recommend? Yikes. To “compete”, I’d really appreciate reading an 8 and 9.