I'm curious how much of it is just perception. For example, I'm not really sure how different Woody Allen's approach to film is now from when he started. Sure, he's grown as a filmmaker, but that's not really what we are talking about. Pliny's concerns seem to be more oriented towards "falling out of fashion." Pliny cites: "...Woody Allen, who was huge back in the 70?s, but now makes movies for his smaller but select and loyal audience." My question is -- is his approach any different? I think he has ALWAYS been making movies for his smaller but select and loyal audience. He makes a movie a year. He uses the same opening title sequence with the same font. He's just been doing his thing. Sometimes people were into it. Sometimes they weren't. (And even though he's sort of on the outs in the US, he still has a huge international following). My point isn't the merits of Woody Allen. Rather it's the perception of success and how that relates to your personal goals in your own career. I think part of the problem from most people is that there is a target. James Cameron is obviously successful. Do you measure your own success in filmmaking next to his? Is your career going to fall short if you don't make multi-billion dollar films? Are you unsuccessful without an Oscar? Is Annette Benning a failure because she's never won an Oscar despite stellar performances? I wonder what Georges Milies thought when he made Trip To The Moon. There was no one for him to compare his work to. Do you think he considered his career successful? I know these are all rather rhetorical questions. My point is -- I believe that most successful people don't measure themselves on a standard of other people's success. Shane Black is a great example. Huge success in the 80s and early 90s. Fell off the face of the planet because he was personally unsatisfied with the business. Everyone was telling him who he was and what a con artist he must have been to sell a flop script for 4mil. And now he's back in full force. I'm guessing, he just likes making films to the point that it doesn't matter what people say. I think if making films is what you want to do, you make films. Applying this to screenwriting -- if you want to be a screenwriter, you really need to like writing screenplays. Whether you like it or not, you're going to end up with a huge stack of scripts that haven't been made. If you don't love doing it, you're just making yourself miserable for no reason. Trust me, I've seen the stack of spec scripts Patrick Duncan has written at his house. I was blown away by its sheer enormity. I'd heard of two -- COURAGE UNDER FIRE and MISTER HOLLAND'S OPUS. This all goes back to -- what is success? How do you personally define a successful career? Because quite frankly, I don't think Woody Allen cares whether or not people think he's "less successful." I guarantee he's going to keep putting out movie after movie each and every year regardless of what people think. As Pliny says, "It seems to me, that in this respect, a screenwriter’s life is very much like a professional musician’s, and many of the same forces apply." I'm not sure how different that is from anyone in any field. That's just life. Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame" wasn't literal. He wasn't saying everyone gets 15 minutes of FAME. He was saying everyone has their moment where they shine. I think we cite people we aspire to be like looking at their accomplishments, and wanting that for ourselves. The sad part is that we miss out on the everchanging environment around us. Rather than asking, "Who is going to be the next Spielberg?" I find the more interesting question, "What is going to be the next medium to replace film? -- and who is going to be the 'Spielberg' of that medium?" One looks to the future. The other dwells in the past. Anyway, kinda went all philosophical on this one lol. Scott addresses something that's more to the reality of the business itself. Pigeon-holing. I have opinions on this as well, but it really is just small beans in comparison to doing what you love.

James, and then Woody Allen comes out with Midnight in Paris which is by far his biggest success from a revenue standpoint. I appreciate your musings. I've only been in the business 25 years, but in that short time, we have seen VCRs come and go, DVDs on their way to coming and going, the whole Direct To Video / DVD phenomenon, VOD, digital filmmaking. Technology changes so quickly. With CGI capability going up and costs going down, that perhaps more than anything has driven the preponderance of superhero movies, just because filmmakers can go as big as they want visually. The point? I can live with your message: Do what you love.

Exactly, Scott! Hehe. Yeah, I went in a different direction with the topic. I realize you were talking more or less about the specifics of how things change and how it applies to screenwriters. I was more aimed at the broader sense of the question. I honestly don't think what you choose matters, as long as you pursue it with your heart. Fads are dictated by individuals breaking the mold and the rest trying to catch up. Here's a Steve Jobs quote that I love: http://www.crazyonesquote.com/

My point wrt Woody Allen is that his movies make enough of a profit that he gets to continue making more movies, which is better than the alternative. Even so, in order to get funding, he's had to compromise, shooting abroad a lot more, instead of just in Manhattan. Furthermore, his audiences *have* declined since his 70's peak: in adjusted domestic box office, Midnight in Paris is #7 on the list, Annie Hall still #1. And a $135M worldwide gross for Midnight nowadays really only counts as a moderate box office success. In practical terms, that cuts off the possibility of Woody being able to make another movie on the scale of Love and Death or Sleeper. Consequently, there are stories he's not able to tell anymore. Also, wrt Steve Zaillian, imho, as Hollywood's premier adapter of material, his longevity is due to the fact he's actually the ultimate specialist screenwriter. Out of all his credits, he only has 2 story credits: Mission Impossible (which he shared with David Koepp), and an original screenplay with American Gangster that was actually based on a magazine article.

I would argue that in the case of Steve Zailian, and I would think Aaron Sorkin as well, they *do* have a brand -- their brand is capital-q Quality. Those guys you turn to and know they're gonna bring you a capital-m Movie. I just got repped within the past few months and as a development project type of client, one of things I and my people agree that I *want* to be branded as spy-thriller guy. If that ever works to my detriment, I'll be happy, because that means I'll be working somewhat consistently.