Every writer eventually pastes a script into a chatbot at 1am, desperate for a second opinion nobody has to schedule. The notes that come back often feel encouraging and organized. Whether they are actually useful is a different question, and the answer depends entirely on what kind of problem your script has.
What generic AI models genuinely catch well
Large language models are trained on enormous amounts of writing craft material, screenwriting books, produced scripts, and structural analysis, so they are reliably good at a specific set of tasks.
- Format and mechanics. Slug lines, scene headers, action line length, dialogue block formatting. If your script is a mess on the page, AI will flag it accurately and fast.
- Structural math. Where your inciting incident falls relative to page count, whether your midpoint lands where three act or save the cat frameworks expect it to, whether act two sags in page count terms.
- Continuity and logic gaps. A character referenced as dead in act one showing up alive in act three, a prop that vanishes, a timeline that does not add up. Pattern matching across a full document is something AI does better than most tired humans on a second read.
- Grammar, clarity, and redundancy. Clunky sentences, repeated words, and overwritten action lines get caught reliably.
None of this is trivial. A script full of typos and structural confusion will get passed on by a reader before your story ever gets a fair chance. Cleaning that up first, with AI or otherwise, is a legitimate and cheap way to save your good notes for the things that actually matter.
Where the notes start to fall apart
The trouble starts once your script is clean and the real question becomes whether it is good. That is where generic AI feedback gets noticeably shakier.
It defaults to consensus, not conviction
Ask a generic model for notes on a dark, ambiguous ending and it will often nudge you toward something more resolved and legible, because that is the statistically safer pattern in its training data. It is not wrong exactly, it is just averaged. It tends to smooth toward the most common version of a good script rather than the sharpest version of your script.
It rarely commits to a real opinion
Generic AI feedback is often hedged: this could work, or you might consider, or some readers may feel. Real development notes from an experienced reader or mentor tend to be more direct, because conviction is part of what makes a note useful. Vague, hedged feedback is safe to give and hard to act on.
It cannot fully judge tone, voice, or specificity
A model can tell you your protagonist lacks a clear want. It struggles to tell you that your protagonist's want is boring, or that your dialogue sounds like every other screenplay's dialogue rather than sounding like this particular character. That kind of judgment requires taste, meaning an accumulated, opinionated sense of what has been done before and what actually lands, not just what fits a pattern.
The taste problem, explained plainly
Taste is not mystical, but it is not something a generic model reliably has, because taste requires a consistent point of view held across many judgments, not just knowledge of craft terminology. A model can define what a strong midpoint reversal is. Deciding whether your specific midpoint reversal is clever or predictable requires having read enough scripts to know the difference, and having an opinion strong enough to say so plainly.
This is the actual gap between structure and specificity. Structure is checkable. Specificity is a judgment call, and judgment calls are where writers most need a second opinion they can trust or at least argue with.
A quick test you can run yourself
Before trusting any AI note, ask it to explain why the note is true, using specific lines or pages from your script. Generic feedback tends to fall apart under that pressure, producing vague justifications or restating the note in different words. Specific, well grounded feedback holds up, because it points to something concrete on the page.
Where persona based tools like Movie Mentors fit in
Movie Mentors tries to address one specific piece of this problem: the averaging. Instead of one generic model giving one hedged opinion, it builds separate AI personas from years of aggregated public material, interviews, commentary tracks, masterclasses, and produced screenplays, for individual filmmakers, and lets you put up to four of them in one chat. The value is not that any mentor is the real filmmaker. It is explicit that these are AI reconstructions built from public material, not endorsements or private access. The value is that a persona built on a documented, specific point of view is more likely to give a committed, specific opinion than a system prompt with a name attached, and that four such personas disagreeing with each other surfaces real tradeoffs instead of one smoothed answer.
That approach has real limits too. Feedback depth depends on how much documented material exists for a given filmmaker, so a heavily studied figure produces richer notes than a thinly documented one. It is still text based feedback, so it cannot replace hearing dialogue read aloud or watching a scene staged, which is where a lot of real problems surface. And it is development feedback, not industry access; no AI tool gets your script in front of an agent.
How the options actually compare
| Feedback type | Best for | Weak point |
|---|---|---|
| Generic AI chat | Formatting, structure math, continuity, grammar | Hedged, averaged opinions, weak on taste and specificity |
| Persona based AI chat | Distinct, committed points of view, surfacing disagreement | Depends on how documented the persona is, still text only |
| Paid script coverage | Market read, coverage format familiar to industry readers | Slow, costly per script, one reader's opinion |
| Table read or live workshop | Dialogue, pacing, tone as actually experienced | Hard to arrange often, feedback less structured |
What no AI can replace
Whatever tool you use, a script only fully reveals its problems when it is read aloud or performed. Dialogue that looks fine on the page can die in someone's mouth. Pacing that seems tight on paper can drag badly out loud. No text based feedback, generic or persona built, catches that reliably, which is why writers who rely only on AI notes, however good, tend to still get surprised at the first real table read.
The honest way to use AI notes, of any kind, is as a fast, cheap first pass that clears out the obvious problems and sharpens your own thinking before a human reader, a workshop, or a paid coverage service ever sees the script. It is a floor raiser, not a substitute for judgment, and the writers who get the most out of it are the ones who keep deciding for themselves which notes to actually keep.
Originally published at https://www.moviementors.ai/answers/chatgpt-screenplay-notes-quality.html.
Written by the team behind Movie Mentors.
