Sounds like a half-assed way for that reader/evaluater to just make a little money. They put forth no effort and if you feel that way contact the administrators.
Read what they say, but always make sure you consider they just don't like the genre/material you're working with or just may not have the experience to really know what it might take. I love horror scripts, love reading them, I give extensive feedback on that to writers. My boss, though, doesn't know a damn thing about them and can't really judge a good horror script at all. And he's been in the business for 50 years. So keep in mind an outlier might just be someone who isn't keen on a certain genre. If they at least note structure problems or character problems, that's stuff to keep in mind.
I might contact them, but in general I'm really respectful towards it just being an opinion. I also don't think the person liked my writing style (action lines).
They gave a 6 on character and setting, but 4s on everything else. They said "dialogue can be polished", which in my opinion means that it is better than a 4 at the moment, yet that is what it is given.
To me "polishing" means there's just a few parts that didn't flow the way THEY wanted it to be, or how THEIR opinion dialogue should work.
Other things mentioned were:
-"Some of the writing is novelistic and doesn't translate to the viewer." Then they mentioned two instances, one being a character introduction, the other being a quick side note on a real life artifact, and I felt it was needed to let production people to know what I was mentioning (which was the Lion Man Statue). Not everyone is going to know what that is, so I added a small blurb that it is a real 40,000 year old famous artifact.
In my opinion, the script has to almost flow novelistic because its set in the distant future and uses horror monsters that the viewer knows, but the characters don't. Even with that said, all my action lines are descriptive of what is being seen on screen and not just prose for the hell of it.
Then they mentioned some typos, which is on me. I did do two read troughs before submitting again, but being dyslexic it's hard for me to notice them. At least they wrote out page numbers and the lines, which helped, but honestly I'd rather have more specific reasonings for why it was given a low score.
The only real feedback on structure is them saying the first act was too "fleeting" and that after the first act, the direction becomes week. So in my opinion after page 27 they kind of just lost interest.
Overall, I cynic in me feels they intentionally scored it at a 4 to knock my average down right below the cut off.
