If I posted a photo of who I was writing for, it would be seen as more than a little narcissistic. I write screenplays for the sort of movie I would like to see. That way, I know that I will please at least one person. If I try to please anyone else, I am at best shooting in the dark.

Point taken, Wolf. From my view, it goes without saying a writer needs to write stories they themselves are passionate about. The point of my post is to remind us that movies are not bought, developed and produced in a vacuum. Rather perhaps the most fundamental reality on the studio side of things is FINDING AN AUDIENCE. If they commit X amount of dollars into developing, producing, marketing and distributing movie Y, will it result in Z dollars [profitability]? That's their bottom line, their gut check in terms of a green light or not. "Who is your audience?" That was one of the very first pieces of advice given to me by my agents when I first broke into the business in 1987. That was the question they told me to pose when assessing ANY STORY CONCEPT I came up with. What I attempted to do in this post is take that pragmatic reality on the business side of things, and make it beneficial to writers on the CREATIVE SIDE: by attaching a face to it. Instead of thinking about 'target demos' and numerical statistics, how about writing the story for a person, one who represents a much larger group becoming in effect another character in our story-crafting process. In any event, the overall point still stands: When buyers assess a spec script, one of the major points of determination is who the audience is. Writers are either mindful of that or not. I think the former is a better path.

So would it be safe to say studios only want to produce pg13 flicks to fulfill all four quadrants? (with the exception of the under13, but let's be honest, they'll see it anyway just because it's pg13) How risky is it to write knowing something will ultimately be 'R' based on content/concept alone, minus dialogue and/or guts 'n sex? The reason I ask is somewhere there's an article saying that studios want less sex in order to lock in a PG13 rating to be able to market/sell to bigger audience. (not sure if I read that here or elsewhere)

There's no right or wrong answer to this, Despina. Obviously if you're writing an NC-17 movie, that's something, as a writer, you want to ponder carefully. But the difference between an R-rated movie and a PG-13 movie can be simply the cutting of a few F-bombs. Of course, it can be more than that, but my point is if a buyer believes your story can play to as well or better to a wider audience as a PG-13 movie, then that will be something decided in development. If they like the concept, the characters, the writing and all the rest, the rating is a secondary consideration. Besides for some movies, an R-rating is a plus [see Judd Apatow]. So my advice: Write the movie you see in your head. Know that if you drop a couple or more F-bombs in an otherwise PG-13 script, perhaps sanitize it. However if the story you have is truly an R-rated one, write the R-rated version. That is the nature of the characters and that story universe. Be truthful to that. Again if your script is great, the rating of it won't hurt its marketability, and something that can be changed after purchase.

[...] Hollywood obsesses over target demos. The “demos” part is short for demographic group. Therefor... [...]

I like this tip Scott! I don't understand this "I write only for myself" bent I've seen in some of the criticism I see the act of creating something for someone else as the fundamental key to good storytelling. Its a unique human trait and should be celebrated more than the "deep self reflection"... after all no one wants to sit through some one else's vacation slide show

John, that is a great line: "after all no one wants to sit through some one else’s vacation slide show." Ha! So true. There's an old saying in Hollywood: "The problem with movies as art... is they are commerce." Sure, anyone can write any type of story, even go out and shoot it, edit it, and self-distribute it on the web. But will anybody SEE it? If it has something compelling, a concept people can quickly relate to others (By Word Of Mouth), and so on. Yet as soon as we take that analytical step, we are talking about an AUDIENCE, what THEY respond to. So yes, one can write and produce something strictly for their own pleasure and enjoyment, then hope that what they produce resonates with others. But that whole "resonating" thing implies an audience. Therefore doesn't it make sense to front-load that awareness in our creative process? Indeed if one's hope is to succeed at writing and creating mainstream commercial movies, that is a mandatory part of the creative and story-crafting process. Thanks for your comments!

Just listened to this ~30min clip from Steve Soderbergh that sorta kinda plays into this topic... Definitely pertains to the Business side of Screenwriting. http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/opinions/10-things-wrong-with-hollywood-according-to-steven-soderberghs-state-of-cinema-address.php?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=rejectnation

Sodebergh's presentation this weekend was all over social media and now there are audio, video and transcripts available. Thanks for this, going to feature it tomorrow.

[...] Screenwriting Tip: Know who you’re writing for (gointothestory.blcklst.com) [...]