I have been analyzing scripts to see what makes scripts stand out. There is this report by Franklin (of The Black List) that the normal distribution for scripts, puts most script around the 6/10 mark.
On the other hand, when you ask someone how much they loved something - and ask them to rate it on a scale of ten, 7 means satisfactory (Expectations were met). 8 Means they were impressed. And 9 and 10, they are ecstatic and are raving fans. 6 is usually considered a lowkey deterrant score.
It is also interesting if you dig through all the ratings in letterboxd or IMDB (I pulled data for over the last 30 years) and less than 7% of movies cross the 7/10 mark. And there is also a correlation with ratings and box office collections. 7 and above simply cooks virality into the story.
While there is so much that is there in Franklin's post around this, the one interesting data point that I saw analyzing over 600 scripts from 2000 - 2026 is the ratio of main characters to supporting characters. In almost all the scripts where the rating was above 7.0, the ratio of main characters to supporting characters stayed below 3. So for every main characters, you have at best 3 supporting characters. The minute it goes beyond that, things get a bit too complicated.
Just something to keep in mind as you are writing your next script.
And here's the post that Franklin wrote : https://blcklst.substack.com/p/an-8-score-is-rare-as-it-should-be
1 person likes this
I would say that's more of a trend than a rule, but it goes to show: "too many cooks, spoil the broth."
You can certainly have one more or one less character, but the questions are what are they doing? What are they contributing? 3 allows for variety without overload.
3 people like this
Franklin should instead concentrate on employing readers who thoroughly read scripts, are astute story-wise, give an actual damn and don't use AI. Start by fully cleaning house and paying the readers more, then amp up the org's quality control which is currently nil.
It's a major mistake for writers to change their scripts based on what this terrible, corrupt and over-hyped system reports. Flawed data points result in erroneous analysis.
1 person likes this
E Langley I dont want to prosecute Black List's process in this thread, but isnt their model that they get industry folks to read the scripts and give assessments (and points?). He explains as much in the report. What are we missing?
4 people like this
The BL data is heavily skewed by the implications of assigning a certain rating. If a reader gives an overall 8 or above, that triggers a whole set of mechanics, such as mass emails going out and free reads.
There's no getting away from the fact that it's a business, too, and that business interests can be impacted by scoring.
6/10 just so happens to be slightly above average, which compliments the writer, means no extra services have to be provided, and most likely ensures another month of hosting plus an additional review.
I'm not saying it's a scam but I wouldn't take the data too seriously at all. There's a fundamental motive to put business interests first that, even if not in policy, is going to exist in the subconscious.
1 person likes this
CJ Walley Anytime human beings are involved, you are going to get subjective results. Im glad he is atleast making an attempt to make it better. At the end of the day everything around this is business - nobody is funding a film out of goodwill. it comes down to a product being made and sold and hopefully turn a profit to keep doing it again.
BL being a "business" cant be the reason to dismiss the value it brings to the table.