This piece goes along well with the piece from last week, the "100mil means you have to save the world" rule. Both raise an interesting question: when should we ever go outside those rules? It's obvious the goal is to make money with films, so repeating a successful pattern is great, but why/who/what makes the decisions that fly against this pattern? And does it happen few times, more often then we think or rarely at all?

writerhaha, great questions. I've been meaning to do an in-depth analysis of Lindelof's Vulture piece as it is REALLY informative about why things are the way they are re superhero / blockbuster movies. Who goes outside the rules? You can always pretty much look to lower-budget indie type movies. District 9, Looper, Drive, all genre films, all distinctive in their own way. But even as fresh as those movies were, they will have limited impact with major studio productions for multiple reasons. One is the merchandising angle which has become an increasingly more important component of which movies get made. I've got two recent articles which highlight that point, yet another post I hope to have time to get to. For a screenwriter, one takeaway is this: If you do something different and it works, that will get noticed. The movie itself, assuming it gets produced, may or may not connect with an audience. But the distinctive take or voice at work will often get that writer work. And if they want it, on bigger, more mainstream films. So dare to be a visionary, take risks, sell them your dream.