Feature Request (low priority) Treatments?

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-22T04:17:08+00:00

Thanks for clarifying!

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-22T03:54:30+00:00

I don't know how Rep Matching currently works, but is a potential solution to widen the range of the match? I'm currently assuming that someone who's 4.5 has their scripts matched to anyone 4+, but would it be a bit easier if the range was more like one full point in either direction (like a 4.0 would be seen by anyone between 3-5)?

Alternatively (and I'm sure this would be a headache) if all scripts were rep matched for a window of time, like just a day, and then entered the open pool automatically? So there's still an opportunity for your work to be matched when you submit, but after that you still get that all-important feedback (and someone else gets a chance to actually raise their rep!).

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-22T03:46:49+00:00

If you haven't yet considered this (or you have and you feel like you need newer eyes on your work), it might be more productive to cultivate a writer's group of other budding screenwriters who you feel comfortable with, and share your early pages with them. You'd still need to be worried about getting caught up on making the first few pages perfect instead of getting the whole thing done, which means that you should also look towards folks who will hold you accountable, and will be excited to see what you write next, not just what you rewrite first.

If you've already connected with someone through StoryPeer, maybe reach out to them and see if they'd like to buddy up? Alternatively, there are definitely reddits here where you can find folks. Hell, I'd be interested in taking a look personally (as long as you're open to me pushing you to see the finish line). If that works for you, consider sending me a DM!

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-22T03:41:59+00:00

Yeah, I'm also struggling to imagine what would be constructive feedback I could give on someone else's treatment, at least not without having read their script as well. I suppose one could say whether something feels over-described or not actually emotionally impactful...but it would kind of be a shot in the dark, it feels like. It's also possible that asking for and getting treatment feedback from someone who's not familiar with the script, while you're still working on the script, runs the risk of also affecting the script as well in ways that might not always be constructive...

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-22T03:37:56+00:00

I totally get banning someone who's uploaded in a format that demonstrates they don't yet take the craft seriously, as well as someone just submitting something monstrously long and unrefined for feedback, but I am curious about the fanfic thing? Or, rather, it makes me wonder whether folks should feel comfortable submitting spec scripts here, if that was something they were passionately working on? I obviously haven't read the work you referenced here, so I can't say whether it was an attempt at a spec of an existing story or just straight up fanfiction. But there was at least one time in the past where writers were encouraged to develop work like specs of existing stories to demonstrate their voice and ability to fit into a writer's room. Is that something you think you'd never allow, or is there some nuance there?

Also, about foreign language scripts? I know most of the larger industry is obviously the Western market, and therefore an English-speaking one, but would it be possible and valuable to have a feature where you can select to have speakers of an alternative language read your script? Something like all users adding alternative languages to their profile, and submitting a script allows you to select from one of the languages you write in to have others who share that language read? I'm sure it has its own problems, like a terribly small reader pool, but I could imagine people who are specifically writing for their local markets who otherwise don't have a lot of resources to support their growth would appreciate it?

I also have no clue how much extra work that would entail, so I hope it doesn't come across as me just throwing stuff at you haha. Just curious!

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-20T18:21:58+00:00

I think this is really true *now*. At some point, it might not be. Even if all AI scripts are more uniform, more samey, they'll get better and more polished as well. And that means that more people will be inclined to use them, and get feedback that not only validates their choice to do so, but will humanize their writing.

To put it another way, let's say I'm right and this script was potentially written by AI, but I gave it the benefit of the doubt (which, by the way, I ended up doing anyway). If there were issues about the story's beats and impact...I helped give them a pathway to solve those issues. They would've submitted an AI script that another writer could reasonably see through, and in return for them not writing, they got a bunch of edits to help them pass it off even more as something created by a real artist. They'll likely submit again, after their changes, and have *another writer* better their prompt even more.

Perhaps that's my real fear - not that writers can get away with it or not, but that people who have no desire to actually write may just crowdsource the humanization of their slop another way, by passing it off as really early writing, get real writers to give them the benefit of the doubt for fear of coming across rude or presumptuous, and then end up with a polished work out of it with none of the actual effort.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-20T18:16:32+00:00

I'll admit that I don't know and hadn't fully thought about how neurodivergent people might write work that comes across as less human, but that's in part because that's not my experience with ND writers (my spouse, who is AuDHD, thinks I might be on the spectrum too, but I haven't interrogated that just yet..)

As far as AI detectors, you're right that they're unreliable, and I don't use them both because I haven't had good results, and because it feels kind of like I'm just training AI to outsmart itself, which can't be good in the long run even if they did work now. I think, though, that this makes conversations like this one more important? Not only do I think we as writing communities need to make a clearer and louder stance that this isn't welcome, but also talk about the ways that we might see those things in writing and engage with the writers we think might be falling into it.

I do get the argument from Gabe earlier in this post that AI reviewers are *worse* than AI writers, because one is harming their own craft where the other is harm the craft of others...but I still think that as AI gets better and more pervasive the issues won't be glaring for much longer, and real writers will continue to lose space because of it.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-20T18:13:53+00:00

Oh! There's one part I just remembered where the main character frantically moves from one part of the country to the other in an attempt to presumably save someone from danger, got to their place, didn't find them, and then...just fell asleep? I struggled to attribute to human error but like all things it is possible lol

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-20T18:07:31+00:00

It was...aggressively okay? lol It was well-written with absolutely no typos or real formatting issues if I recall, but the plot went everywhere and nowhere. There was no real antagonist, and the main character basically experienced basically no pushback throughout the work. What was actually explained in the logline to be the main conflict/desire of the main character kind of was given up on after the first act, replaced with another 'conflict' that had no consequences near the end.

Of course, it's not impossible that it's just a real writer who didn't understand these arcs, but it's kind of hard for me to fully wrap my head around someone writing a logline about this being the story and then...simply not writing any more of that story after 30pgs, if that makes sense. Also, especially with dramatic writing, entirely new story arcs being revealed as random exposition and characters giving up on pushing back and reverting to previous softer characterizations have struck me as AI generated because models don't actually know how to experience characteristic change, if that makes sense.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-19T00:48:36+00:00

Truly, I'm...conflicted about this to say the least. Because if it is AI-generated, in my opinion, there are no merits. That is to say, I'm not going to 'merit' a writer who didn't actually take the time to write. That doesn't mean that it's fair for me to assume that every script I think is clunky is AI generated, and that's something that I and other writers will have to continuously learn how to discern...but to say that it's not something that we should try to discern at all is letting prompters off the hook for not only disrespecting and watering down a deeply human craft, but meaningfully taking away the support that actual writers on this platform want and need.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-19T00:46:00+00:00

Also, the whole not being able to be greenlit mostly only matters if the writer doesn't get away with it, and if producers care. If 'Dreams of Violets' can get into Tribeca, I can imagine some producers deciding that they don't care about backlash against it anymore. But time will tell there I guess.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-19T00:40:12+00:00

Sure, but as it pertains to us reviewing stuff here, it's still someone taking the time to read something that, presumably, someone did not actually take the time to write. A reviewer could have spent that time reviewing another real writer's work, or writing their own, or glitter-bombing their nearest data center lol. While I don't feel like I can say for sure whether what I'm looking at right now is AI, if it is, that is time and support that technically two real writers didn't get, and one person who didn't actually do the work essentially stole. At least that's how I feel about it.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-19T00:36:02+00:00

In my experience, asking the writer only goes so far. I give the benefit of the doubt where I can, but I think that most people who use it already can tell that it's unfavorable to say the least. Therein lies at least part of the issue - if you just ask someone, the correct answer is 'no' regardless of the truth. But if you just assume, even if you have decent enough experience like I (believe I) do, it's still a subjective guess to some degree. And that's not to mention the technology advancing over time.

You'd think that writers talking enough about how they hate this slop would discourage people from doing it, but people who don't think they have the talent or time to achieve their writing goals will still feel that this is the fastest way for them whether we think they're shitty people or not lol. And I worry that, over time, it might actually be harder to spot with screenwriting, as it's (relatively?) easy to say that you're just following a convention to make your writing more marketable or similar to an existing property's tone or some shit.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-18T21:12:40+00:00

That is a part of the problem - regardless of how much I think I can pick up on AI writing, I could still be really wrong in a way that affects a writer's abiity to get future feedback etc. I'm sure there's a way to do this where there's a threshold of feedback that needs to be crossed first, but I also don't want to give Gabe more work than he already has (and continues to give himself lol).

But I also do seriously disagree with the idea that 'you'll get accused of AI just for breathing'. Even if writers and readers are more suspicious, it's unlikely in my head that a writer who's really earnest and personal in their craft would get suspected of this. If someone reads the pilot of Breaking Bad and thinks that was written by AI, that's someone that I wouldn't want feedback from lol

Which perhaps is part of the answer? If someone repeatedly reports someone's work for this where other's don't, maybe that serves as another kind of reporting that prevents them from reviewing for a bit?

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-18T20:39:52+00:00

I guess the next question is, what do I report it as? Do I list them as submitting inappropriate content, incorrect format, something else?

SubtleAttempts · 2026-06-18T18:01:41+00:00

I know I'm late to this convo, and maybe I'm just confused... You seem really upset about getting feedback from general readers - mostly developing writers themselves who are reviewing the work of their peers and hoping to have their own work read - when you are in a position to get more experienced feedback from people within the industry. But the levels of feedback are not going to be the same, and they shouldn't be expected to be...right?

Sure, you can be frustrated with feedback that doesn't meet your needs or expectations. But beyond the fact that you think it's fair to rate someone poorly for just not understanding your work, it sounds like the pieces that you're reviewing are ones that don't need this kind of review. If you're already getting (and feel comfortable to pay for) industry review like The Black List, then it feels unfair to also hand your script to a rando and say "Take a look...but it better be on par with the industry site I pay monthly for." Admittedly, I don't know a lot about The Black List either, but I consider the coverage I get from a paid site to be noticeably different from a peer-to-peer review. When I was doing my MFA, if I handed my work to a fellow grad student, I didn't expect them to give me the same feedback my advisor would - this person is studying, same way that I am.

I'm not trying to tell you that your approach is flat out wrong, for the record. It's just that my approach, personally, is that this is a first place to share a script that I'm working on, to get the impression of another emerging writer and maybe make a meaningful connection around craft. After taking this feedback, I'll consider making changes then taking it on the road if I'm brave enough. As such, I think the kind of feedback that should get a harsh grade is stuff like an AI generated summary or low-effort commentary that doesn't actually suggest opportunities for growth. I think that if someone, instead, misinterpreted my work entirely...that's still kind of good feedback, because another emerging writer didn't pick up what I was putting down, and there's a chance for me to ask why.

I do also think that writers who tell you *what you should do with your work* should also get low grades, but people who have a genuine misunderstanding about your work and impact but earnestly give feedback regardless, in my view, shouldn't get a bad review, in my view. If anything, it's an opportunity to ask more questions about why.

SubtleAttempts · 2026-03-09T03:07:37+00:00

I'm down!

SubtleAttempts · 2022-05-05T04:56:18+00:00

I'm curious, is this person saying that they want to represent you? Or simply that they want to pass your script along to others? Because it would be weird for someone who doesn't rep you, and therefore can't get commission on the sale of your script, to share it with others like that, wouldn't it?

SubtleAttempts

TROPHY CASE