Honestly, they aren't very helpful, unless you have coverage from multiple sources/companies. And you don't need official coverage to get something similar, especially if you live in LA. Most of the people who do coverage are 18-25 year olds just out of high school or college. Assistants working full time jobs, that likely would rather be doing anything other than coverage. For many screenwriters, that is your peer group that you hang out with in your spare time. If you really want "coverage" from multiple sources, give your screenplay to half a dozen of them. As for wanting multiple coverage on other people's work -- that just seems like it would be one more distraction, one more reason not to write, one more thing that seems like it may hold a key, but it really is only one more thing to obscure your vision on your real goal: writing a screenplay. Just know that different people have different opinions. That one person can dislike a script that the next loves. That's really all to get out of seeing multiple coverage samples. CAVEAT: If you do end up looking at multiple coverage(s), you'll notice some people are much better at crafting a logline than others. Remember, loglines in coverage are generated from a reader that has simply read the script. Some people can write a summary that feels like a movie, where other can take the same material and make it feel like a blueprint. The sad truth of the matter is that the writing skill of the person doing the coverage often has a bigger impact on your career than your own writing. Coverage is not a writer's tool. It is a producer's tool to pretend that they have actually looked and the material and feel comfortable saying, "No," to more work than they could possibly read in a lifetime.

Aha! Controversy! "Here’s my question: Apart from just being curious what script readers thought about the script for this or that movie, what would one hope to learn from that exercise?" Scott, if one may presume to speak for one, I must take exception to, and umbrage at James's (yes, you, James) dismissal of reading coverage as a potential writer's tool. Of course, we have all read and heard how resentful, over-worked, and, well, incompetent Readers are (Just kidding, Readers!) But GITS has recently had a wealth of interviews with producers, writers and Readers, which, while pointing to the utter hopelessness of 1) ever getting your script read, and 2) getting it past the ever-wary Reader, left me with the take-away that Readers (and even producers, who are reputed to be capable of swallowing only what has been masticated for them in the manner of Alicia Silverstone - I'm not kidding, producers! Like they would ever read this blog. Or my script.) are ALL desperate to find a GREAT SCRIPT. I can believe that. So how can we find out what THEY think a great script is? Hmmm. Even knowing what a Reader considers awful might prove cautionary(or THAT script they loved). Those of us laboring away an hour's drive from Mayberry don't have the same peer network as those in, say, LA. But that's exactly not what I'm looking for in reading coverage. Like those of many of the readers of GITS, my bookshelves groan with the weight of dozens of books on screenwriting - some of which we have read. We conscientiously seek to learn as much as possible about what makes for good writing. But I want to be a made man in Hollywood. Can we assume that for most of us the Reader is the Guardian we must please or appease? And that it would be helpful to compare what we are writing - even if it's really good - to what the Reader is looking for? Especially if that Reader recommended a script that actually got produced - whatever the box office. But I take your point, James - yours is the voice of experience and devotion to craft. I would have to disagree with you only in the sense that reading coverage could be one useful arrow in the quivers of writers who are trying to shift the odds in their favor. BTW, Scott has a great series on coverage - The Story Behind Script Coverage, that's still available to purloin. (ME in Homer Simpson whisper, "Don't anybody tell him he could charge money for this stuff.") I didn't format that right, did I?

Hey there, Semantics... ScriptShadow is a PROFESSIONAL script reader who, every Friday, will review an AMATEUR script. The rest of the week, he reviews scripts (not shooting scripts, but good solid writer's drafts) that tend either to have recently sold to production companies or had talent attached. He does not do so from the office of any one particular production company, but that does not make him "amateur". I'm a f/t pro writer who has used SS's services and can attest first-hand that there is nothing "amateur" about what Carson does. I'm sure that's not what Scott intended to imply, but the sentence does read a little that way. This is not a shameless plug for SS (he doesn't need one, he's doing just fine on his own), but please... give the guy his dues! Best Zoe

Hi I can totally back Zoe up on this. Carson is the real deal and his reviews are chock-full of screenwriting gems. He reviews scripts that have been touted, recently purchased as well as those in production and if you get on his email list he will email the scripts to you for the next week so you can read before he reviews. I'm not a pro but have learnt heaps by reading his experienced critiques of pro and amateur scripts over the last few months. He spends hours each week on the site, on the reviews and it show. He cuts through the crap and tells you what is working and what isn't, from an experienced reader's perspective. It's GITS and Scriptshadow for me. Cheers Inger

Is it just me or has there been a bit of a reader revolt over there on certain scripts he's found "worth the read" or higher lately? There's been several instances where readers have used his own quotes/"rules" against him, which I've found somewhat amusing.

This was in reference to ScriptShadow.

Steven, it seems like you're seeking out some objective truth and the truth is... there isn't any. I think the best one could come away with is perhaps learning what a particular reader's sensibilities are, but that's still germane to their own perspective - not a holistic answer to how all readers will react to a specific script. On top of that, readers often read for a particular prodco, so what they recommend may actually have less to do with your writing than it does what the prodco is looking for - and therein perhaps lies your answer: Readers are reading for somebody else, so finding out who they are and what their sensibilities are is perhaps the most important factor.

Bark, you and James make excellent points-thank you for trying to save me from my own naivete. Bark said,"Readers are reading for somebody else, so finding out who they are and what their sensibilities are is perhaps the most important factor." That's actually a valuable and productive perspective that I had lost sight of. It would make a great topic for the next Reader Question, Scott. But after all the work, coverage is the reality, the flaming hoop we have to leap through-if we're lucky. Wouldn't studying the smoking coverage of scripts that made it through give us a better chance? To think otherwise is to believe that Hollywood is some insane nightmare! (In case any Readers see this: I still know who holds the real power. I am on your side and I will do everything I can to make you successful.)

Yes, indeed, Zoe and thanks for catching that. I was really up against it time-wise yesterday and did not proofread that post adequately. Poorly phrased on my part. I have updated the OP with a shout-out to you. Thanks again.

Hi there Scott, No worries at all! I knew that no slight was intended. Naturally, when you post so much great material every day (more perhaps than I create every day, to my chagrin!), some hasty lines will slip through. Thanks so much for the site. Like Inger, it's SS and GITS as breakfast companions for me daily. Best Z