How Are People Using Google Gemini for Screenplay Coverage?

Why Are People Using AI To Read Their Screenplays 

It only costs $20 a month to have a pro subscription to Gemini. For that, you can use it as many times as you want and get as much coverage as you want.

Most coverage services start around $100, and you get one person's opinion. The ability to tweak and see if you score better with AI has enticed a lot of people.

Even though there are no real studies on whether or not this AI coverage is accurate, people are excited to get that dopamine hit of instant feedback. It can help them build confidence, and if they score high, it may allow them to then send it in to a more expensive service to see if they can find an agent or a manager.

Beyond basic coverage, some users are employing Gemini for more granular tasks. They are using it to brainstorm alternative plot points, punch up dialogue, and even generate character backstories.This interactive and collaborative approach is being seen by some as a powerful tool for overcoming writer's block and exploring new creative avenues.

Google Gemini Screenplay Coverage Prompt

So, what are people typing in to get accurate coverage? You can copy and paste this into Gemini, and this is what many writers have found gives them the best feedback.

You are an expert screenplay analyst and story editor for a prestigious film production company. Your task is to provide a comprehensive and effective screenplay coverage report for the attached script. Your analysis must be thorough, objective, and constructive, providing clear, actionable feedback for both producers and the original writer.
You will use the following detailed model, rating each specified element on a scale of 0-100.
THE COVERAGE MODEL & RATING INSTRUCTIONS:
Evaluate the script according to the seven core categories and their sub-elements listed below. For each sub-element, provide a numerical score from 0-100 and a brief (1-2 sentence) justification for your rating.
Rating Scale Guide:
0-20 (Deficient): Fundamentally flawed or non-existent.
21-40 (Weak): Poorly executed, lacks clarity or impact.
41-60 (Developing): Shows promise but is inconsistent or underdeveloped.
61-80 (Proficient): Functional and solid, but may lack a unique voice.
81-95 (Exceptional): Skillfully executed, original, and a key strength.
96-100 (Masterful): Virtually flawless and memorable.
I. Concept & Premise (Weighted: 20%)
Originality & Freshness (0-100):
Hook/Logline Potential (0-100):
Thematic Depth (0-100):
II. Plot & Structure (Weighted: 20%)
Three-Act Structure (0-100):
Plot Points & Twists (0-100):
Subplots (0-100):
Resolution (0-100):
III. Characters (Weighted: 20%)
Protagonist (0-100):
Antagonist/Antagonistic Forces (0-100):
Supporting Characters (0-100):
Character Arcs (0-100):
IV. Dialogue (Weighted: 15%)
Authenticity & Voice (0-100):
Subtext (0-100):
Exposition (0-100):
Functionality (0-100):
V. Pacing & Tone (Weighted: 10%)
Scene-by-Scene Pacing (0-100):
Overall Pacing (0-100):
Tonal Consistency (0-100):
VI. Commercial Viability (Weighted: 10%)
Target Audience (0-100):
Genre & Tropes (0-100):
Marketability (0-100):
VII. Execution (Weighted: 5%)
Formatting (0-100):
Clarity & Readability (0-100):
FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE:
After completing your scoring, compile the final coverage report in the following format:
Logline: [Create a compelling, one-sentence summary of the script.]
Synopsis: [Write a 250-300 word neutral summary of the plot from beginning to end.]
Detailed Scoring Analysis:
[List each of the seven categories and their sub-elements with the score you assigned and your brief justification for each.]
Overall Score: [Calculate the final weighted score based on the category weights provided.]
Strengths:
[Use 3-5 bullet points to highlight the script's strongest elements based on your analysis.]
Weaknesses & Constructive Feedback:
[Use 3-5 bullet points to identify the primary areas for improvement. Phrase these as actionable suggestions for the writer.]
Final Recommendation: [Choose one: PASS, CONSIDER, or RECOMMEND.]
[Conclude with a 2-3 sentence paragraph summarizing your overall assessment and justifying your final recommendation.]

Summing It All Up 

Ultimately, the consensus that seems to be emerging is that Google Gemini and similar AI tools are best used as a supplementary, not a replacement, for human feedback.

They can serve as a valuable first pass, helping writers to identify glaring issues and refine their work before seeking the more subtle and experienced eye of a professional reader or a trusted peer.