Industrial Scripts - FAQs & Knowledge Base

NOTE: IS overhauled its scoring system in early March 2019, to deliver as accurate a scoring process as possible. The below refers to all projects submitted after 10.03.19,

The ultimate aim of a coverage report is to help a writer, producer or director move forward with an idea of where their script currently stands in the broader industry landscape.

The analysis in each report seeks to break that down as helpfully as possible, but for many writers, the score is of equal interest, a pithy marker of their script’s status.

It goes without saying that coverage is inescapably subjective, but there’s a honed method behind our scoring system that helps us place each submission…

1) We score the script in 30 performance areas

This is the template we use to break down a script’s viability:

It’s important to note that we do endeavour to meet the script on its own terms here.

If a narrative is set entirely in one location, for example, it may understandably score lower for ‘visual ambition’ or ‘cinematic moments’ than a sweeping sci-fi epic.

But equally, we take care not to penalise a script for failing to achieve something it’s not attempting. So, ‘visual ambition’ might necessarily apply a little differently in our one-room film:

• How is the confined environment made real?
• How kinetic is the description?
• How is the attention to detail?
• How visceral is the action?

Or, put simply, how well are the visuals handled in the context of a bottle narrative?

After all, we can’t judge the visual standards of something like RESERVOIR DOGS or FREE FIRE or TWELVE ANGRY MEN by the exact same metric with which we analyse 2001…

Of course, we would likely score the latter higher on the more cinematic criteria because that’s a much larger part of its appeal, but we can’t ignore the fact that the former three aren’t selling the same wares.

Same for something like ‘dialogue authenticity’.

It’s a criterion that can be read in a few ways.

Sorkin or Tarantino dialogue is inauthentic in the sense that it doesn’t bear much resemblance to real-life human interaction, given how constructed and quippy and rhythmic it often is.

But it’s absolutely authentic in the context of the characters they create. It doesn’t ring false in context.

So, we don’t apply these criteria too prescriptively. Keeping the intent of the script in mind is key to helping us determine where it’s succeeding and where it’s not.

2) We attach that value to a script rating

The ratings are as follows:

• PASS – the script is not ready to be shown to agents, managers or the industry yet and to do so would be foolhardy. It’s by no means the death knell for a project, it’s important not to shy away from the script’s shortcomings, at least at this stage.

Some 60-80% of all submitted scripts are going to fall into the ‘Pass’ bracket, so it’s a relatively high bar to clear. We’re talking scores of anywhere from 0-60.

• LOW CONSIDER – the script might be ready to be shown to the industry, but it could be risky. In this case the script displays significant promise, but is letting itself down in a few key areas. Plenty to build on for the next draft.

Here we’re looking at scores of 60+.

• CONSIDER – this is a strong script, which is likely to provoke a favourable reaction from the industry, without blowing anyone away. The script has a number of strong attributes, but isn’t “taste-proof” yet. Many will like it, a smaller number will have a lukewarm reaction.

Scores of 65+.

• RECOMMEND – this script is pretty much good to go, or very close to being so. Scripts at the higher end of Recommend will be essentially taste-proof: even if the project itself isn’t for that agent or that executive or that producer, they can’t fail to be impressed by it, and good things will entail when they tell their friends about it.

Less than 1% of submitted scripts receive this verdict. It’s an endorsement of the script’s viability as is, so it necessarily needs to be a tough mark to hit. We’re talking scores of 70+.

3) We use the industry itself as context

This is the key point: we aren’t just scoring scripts purely based on where they rank among other submissions.

We’re ranking them against everything, aiming to give writers a realistic picture of where their script falls in comparison to those that may come across a producer’s or agent’s desk, or get made.

To that end, if we look at the scores we end up with by running scripts from some highly-regarded films through the table:

THE SOCIAL NETWORK                       89/100

SE7EN                                                        93/100

THE TERMINATOR                                 90/100

THE GODFATHER PART II                    96/100

THELMA & LOUISE                                 88/100

ALIEN                                                           91/100                                                                                                              

EX MACHINA                                             92/100

GONE GIRL                                                87/100

AMERICAN BEAUTY                               94/100                         

THE FAVOURITE                                      85/100

ETERNAL SUNSHINE                              88/100

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS             93/100

THE MATRIX                                             82/100

STAR WARS                                               84/100

THREE BILLBOARDS                              87/100

THE APARTMENT                                   95/100

BLADERUNNER                                        89/100

MOONLIGHT                                            85/100

TAXI DRIVER                                            96/100

PULP FICTION                                          93/100

…it should be an indication that finding a submitted script that achieves these numbers is statistically unlikely.

We then also take into account the cream of the crop in terms of unproduced scripts, the industry Black List, and applying our scoring system there tends to throw out numbers in the mid-70s.

Of course, we get a much broader range of scores when analysing scripts submitted to IS.

This is why the bars above ‘Pass’ are so difficult to clear. A submission that’s strong among its immediate peers may still fall far short of anything viable by industry standards.

Contextualising submissions in this way helps us ensure, insofar as we can, that we’re giving a realistic picture of a script’s viability.

Saying all of that, script development is never an exact science, and nor is scoring it...but we do everything within our power to be accurate and keep the barometer fair and precise.