AI and Screenwriting – do they belong together?

AI and Screenwriting – do they belong together? By Beverly Nault and Jessica Brown

BEV: Last time in Smashcut, Jess and I explored collaboration with other writers, and arrived at the inevitable discussion going on in every writer’s meeting, workshop, nightmares, and dreams: 

How does AI fit into the future of screenwriting? 

While we won’t pretend to know the future, we do know that the recent WGA negotiations addressed what could and couldn’t be allowed in screenplays. We won’t try to cover all that here, you can find plenty of discussions on that elsewhere. 

What we will discuss is our experience so far.

Jess has been using AI for a lot of her prep work, planning and has found it so helpful she claims she has become hooked.

Jess, I’d love to hear more about how you use AI.

JESS: I have been collaborating with AI for 6 months now. I see value in working with AI as a collaborator and not as a writer. I write all my own scenes and develop all my own concepts, structure, themes, and dialogue. I love the creativity of figuring out the initial story development on my own.

Once I have the first draft, I collaborate with AI. There are many programs out there. I prefer ChatGPT and Claude. It’s fun to play with them and see what you can do with them. ChatGPT and Claude both have free versions with limited interaction. I have the $20.00 monthly program with both (for now) that allows generous interaction with both.

First, I give my AI an identity. By doing this I direct AI to a particular area of its universe, so its responses are more concise to what I am looking for. Second, I give AI a specific task with details of what I am looking for. Third, I give it restrictions. Here’s a recent conversation I had, in which I assigned “Spruce” an identity so the bot would know from which experiences to draw when answering.

Jess: Hello, Spruce!

Identity: You are a prolific screenwriter with an Oscar, Golden Globe, Emmy, and Bafta Awards under your belt.

Task: You are going to be my collaborator as I work on developing my secondary character arcs. Look at my secondary character arcs including their one sentence outlook, the challenge they will be for my main character, and the arc of their own story.

Restrictions: Please rate on a scale of 0 to 10 the entertainment value of my arcs. I am looking for creativity, originality, and comedic value. I am open to any other feedback you have as well.

When Spruce comes back with his “notes” on what I have asked him to look at, I then take those notes and decide what to work on and how I want to go about improving my character arcs. If I am not sure what a note is saying, I will ask for clarification. This goes back and forth for a few minutes until I have decided what to work on in my rewrite.

Some writers allow AI to write scenes or an entire story that they “tweak” to add their “voice.” I just won’t cross that line. Besides, I love to develop stories, figure out the structure, play with the dialogue, etc. That for me is my creative outlet. I do see the value of collaborating with AI in the rewrite asking for feedback on how my scenes, structure, characters, and themes are working.

Think of AI as a fellow writer, someone you bounce ideas off of, but in the end, you make all the creative and critical decisions. I would never ask a fellow writer to write my story. I don’t want that joy taken away from me.

Every writer has their own line in the sand that they will not cross. Here is an excerpt from a recent article I wrote for PSA on the WGA’s recommendations for writers who are on the fence for how to use AI in their writing:

WGA Stance on AI: The WGA has expressed concerns about the use of AI in screenwriting, particularly regarding issues of credit and compensation. They’ve taken a strong stance against studios using AI-generated material without proper crediting or compensation to human writers.

Personal Use for Inspiration: Using AI as a tool for personal brainstorming or to stimulate your creativity is generally viewed differently than using AI-generated content directly in your work. The key is that you’re using AI as a springboard for your own ideas, not as a replacement for your writing.

Ownership and Originality: as long as the final dialogue and content in your screenplay are your own original work, and you’re not directly copying AI-generated text, you’re likely within the bounds of WGA guidelines.

Disclosure: It’s always a good idea to be transparent about your process. If you do use AI tools for inspiration during your writing process, you might want to disclose this to producers or studios you’re working with.

Evolving Guidelines: The rules and guidelines around AI use in screenwriting are still evolving.

It’s crucial to stay updated on the latest WGA statements and guidelines.

To be absolutely certain, it is recommended to:

1. Check the most recent WGA guidelines or statements on AI use.
2. Consult with a WGA representative or your agent if you have specific questions.
3. Use AI-generated content only for inspiration, not directly for content generation.

Finally, remember your unique voice and creativity are what make your writing valuable.

AI should be a tool to enhance your process, not replace your original work.

BEV: That’s a great summary, Jess and good advice. I love the concept that AI is just another writer we ask for input, but not someone who will write the entire project. 

You mentioned getting help polishing a completed script. 

I volunteered one of my screenplays as tribute to try one of the popular apps I’m sure you’ve seen if you’ve spent a minute on Facebook: Greenlight Coverage (GLC). (See glcoverage.com)

JESS: I have seen it and used it for polishing. It’s very useful.

BEV: To date, Greenlight Coverage offers two ways to use their services. You can either purchase a non-recurring package, or a year’s membership in three different price tiers. They handle features, pilots, and shorts. 

Benefits vary, and may include a newsletter, faster delivery, and more tokens per tier. We will leave the complicated subject of tokens for a later discussion. I purchased the non-recurring package that allows three uploads for a cost of $149. 

Sidebar: Greenlight also offers a poster creation service which appears to be a human artist. The costs are $300 and $500 depending on what you get. 

I used one of my most polished screenplays, The Christmas Stocking (TCS), which won highest scoring script at the 2024 Show Low Film Festival. I thought it would be a good one to test the system with. 

When I uploaded TCS, the results came back within a few hours with extensive feedback including a logline, several summaries, strengths, weaknesses, keywords, specifics on how it can be improved, character profiles, and it even suggested several actors for the main roles. 

The first time, I received the coverage in just a few hours. I reviewed the notes and suggestions, asked a couple of follow-up questions, and then made some changes. I uploaded the new version to see how they compared and what kind of result I’d get. The comparison took a little longer, but it was still in just a few hours, not days or weeks like a human would take. 

When uploading a new version, you can tell the system it’s a rewrite, and it will show the older and newer scores in side-by-side comparisons. (The rewrite cost is the same as the original) GLC will also tell you where you messed up or lost momentum in the new version. 

My original numerical score was 66, and my rewrite received an 80, so it went from Pass to Consider, according to GLC.

Here are the unedited GLC scores from the “Consider” version:

Script Score ✎

1. Character Development: 8/10 The characters are well-developed, particularly Kathleen, Sadie, and Val. Their emotional journeys and transformations are convincing and layered. The relationships between characters evolve naturally, and their backstories inform their present actions and attitudes. 
2. Plot Construction: 7/10 The story is well-structured with a clear beginning, middle, and end. The revelation of Val being Kathleen’s daughter is built up effectively through various clues. However, some plot points could have been paced better, and certain scenes feel slightly repetitive. 
3. Dialogue: 8/10 The dialogue feels natural and serves multiple purposes – revealing character, advancing plot, and conveying emotion. Characters have distinct voices, and the conversations flow naturally while still maintaining dramatic tension. 
4. Originality: 7/10 While the basic premise of family reconciliation during Christmas isn’t entirely new, the specific circumstances and the way the story unfolds offers fresh elements. The integration of themes like adoption, medical ethics, and veterans’ issues adds unique layers. 
5. Emotional Engagement: 9/10 The screenplay effectively creates emotional investment in the characters and their situations. The revelations and reconciliations are touching without being overly sentimental, and the various relationship dynamics are handled with sensitivity. 
6. Theme and Message: 8/10 The themes of forgiveness, family reconciliation, and healing are well-developed throughout the story. The Christmas setting enhances rather than overshadows these deeper messages. 

Overall Rating (average): 7.8/10 The screenplay successfully combines emotional depth with holiday warmth, creating a compelling story about family, forgiveness, and second chances. 

Based on the Script Score, this screenplay ranks at 80th percentile and received a Consider.

I asked a follow-up question: What numerical score would earn a Recommend? Here is GLC’s answer: 

Unfortunately, there is no single numerical score that would guarantee a “Recommend” rating. Screenplay coverage services evaluate scripts holistically based on a variety of qualitative and quantitative factors.

Some general guidelines for scoring high enough for a Recommend would include:

• Overall Rating – Most coverage services use a 10-point scale. A screenplay would typically need an Overall Rating in the 8-9 range to be considered for a Recommend.

• Individual Category Scores – Strong scripts tend to score 8 or higher across most of the individual categories like Character, Plot, Dialogue, etc. Having a few categories below 8 could still work if others are higher.

• Qualitative Feedback – The written feedback and analysis needs to be overwhelmingly positive. There shouldn’t be major issues or weaknesses identified. Minor areas for improvement are okay.

• Market Considerations – Even great scripts may only get a “Consider” if the genre, budget level, or other market factors make it a riskier proposition.

• Intangibles – Things like freshness of concept, emotional resonance, commercial potential, and reader subjective opinion can also influence the final rating beyond just numbers.

 

So, in summary, while an 8-9 Overall Rating is a good target, every script is unique and the coverage analyst weighs all feedback holistically. Focusing on strong character development, tight plotting, authentic dialogue, and minimizing weaknesses is the best approach rather than aiming for a single score. Let me know if any part of the process needs more clarification!

My thoughts on Greenlight Coverage from this experiment:

PROS:

• The speed of results 
• Thoroughness of the answers 
• Useful for fine tuning and polishing, as Jess also noted
• Follow-up questions. This is something you don’t see often in human coverage services without additional fees. But Claude and ChatGPT allow many questions, so brainstorming is better left to them!

CONS 

• There were a couple of small details wrong in my summaries, which didn’t affect the outcome. I’ve seen humans make bigger mistakes and oversights in their coverage. 
• I wasn’t crazy about their logline, which in my opinion gave away too much and wasn’t “genre friendly.” See next bullet:
• Needs coverage by genre, so the feedback is more in line with the unique differences. For instance, evaluating horror and comedy is quite different, and one of the reasons humans don’t do well covering all genres is due to individual tastes and experience. This should be fairly easy to ask of a bot.
• I wished for a lower cost for rewritten scripts since much of the results are repeated, such as the logline, character summaries, and suggested human cast. Are you listening, GLC admins?

I’ve used many different human coverage services, and I think Greenlight Coverage compares favorably. I look forward to seeing how their service evolves. I’ll probably use it again to put some of my older screenplays through the wringer. 

For brainstorming new ideas, I’ve been dabbling with Claude and ChatGPT as Jess has.

If you’d like to see the complete coverage of The Christmas Stocking from Greenlight, email me and I’ll send you the entire document. Bev@beverlynault.com 

JESS and BEV: Let us know if you’ve used AI for any of your creative pursuits, and also your pros and cons. This is going to be a hot topic for months and probably years to come.

Write on, PSA!

Bev and Jess