1. More than a prompt. A method for reading scripts.
Most AI tools start with an empty box. The result depends on how well you prompt, how clearly you define the problem, and how much time you spend on follow-up questions, comparisons, and synthesis.
Scriptanalyser is built for a different way of working.
We analyze ideas, scenes, scripts, and audiovisual projects through a guided flow: format, purpose, audience, scope, and analysis level shape how the material is read. The system helps you understand what works, what is missing, where the risks are, and which next step is most reasonable.
This is not meant to replace creative intuition. It is meant to give it better resistance.
A good analysis should not only say “this is good” or “this needs work”. It should show why. It should make strengths clearer, expose weaknesses earlier, and help you make better decisions before you invest more time, money, or prestige in the next version.
Scriptanalyser exists to make qualified script feedback faster, more consistent, and more useful.
2. Why not just ChatGPT or Claude?
You can. And sometimes that is enough.
But a normal AI chat gives you an answer to the question you happen to ask. Scriptanalyser helps you ask the right questions from the beginning.
The difference is the process:
| Normal AI chat | Scriptanalyser |
|---|---|
| You have to define the analysis task yourself. | The system helps understand material, format, and goal. |
| The result varies heavily between prompts. | The analysis follows fixed levels and recurring criteria. |
| You have to ask for structure, risks, and next steps. | The report is built to provide practical decision support. |
| Versions are hard to compare. | Projects and analyses are saved in the same workflow. |
| It often requires several follow-up questions. | Normal and Studio gather several perspectives in one coherent analysis. |
| Feedback easily becomes generic. | The analysis is aimed at the material's format, scope, and use goal. |