Unless you're financing and filming your own movie, you better damn well consider who is going go watch it because you can be sure that the people you're trying to sell it to will be thinking that. If you want to write a 300 page opus on the depressing downward spiral of an alcoholic janitor that never leaves his apartment and only talks to his plants, you go right ahead and get down with your bad self... But don't be deluded enough to assume that the script will have a prayer of finding a financer, either. Writing is communication. Always know your audience; whether that audience is only yourself or the entire population of this planet, if you don't consider that audience then you're just shouting in the dark. As a writer your job is to give people what they never knew they wanted, but if you don't know the difference between what they have and what they don't, then that is an impossible task.

Jim, do you mind if I include your comment in an update to the original post? Because you have said it better than I ever could. Thanks.

Not a problem!

A big part of it also is how someone defines "big". Are films like Whiplash and Rounders "big" summer blockbusters? Obviously not, but they are "big enough" to be movies. Whiplash has huge stakes for such an indie film and Rounders even more so. I mean at one point you have Matt Damon risking an absurd amount of money in a no limits game that will likely get him killed or beat to a pulp again if he loses. You have Ed Norton cheating in a game with a bunch of Police Officers who have no qualms about kicking the shit out of these guys and taking what little money they have left. In Whiplash you have a kid bleeding and sweating to try and achieve perfection. You have a teacher screaming and throwing stuff at his students. In the world of these movies, these are set pieces. Set pieces at their most basic form are the big dramatic moments that exploit your concept. In action movies they are explosions and fights, in thrillers they're chases, in romances like the Notebook they are amped up kissing in the rain scenes, and in dramas they are tense dramatic moments. No matter the budget or genre they are almost always the scenes that go in the trailer. And if you think considering these "big" "trailer" moments is unnecessary, then you might be a novelist (said in a Jeff Foxworthy voice). Brian may get by without thinking of his writing in such terms, but I guarantee there are moments in his scripts that get him really excited to write, that he can perfectly picture playing on a screen. Some people get it intrinsically and good for them. They don't have to think about it or analyze it, they naturally gravitate towards scenes with tension and drama. This advice is for everyone else. Not Brian. And if Brian had made a such a huge career based only off writing smaller films, then maybe his words would hold a bit more weight; but something tells me the writer of such modest films as Ocean's Thirteen and National Treasure 3 understands the idea behind big trailer moments even if he doesn't realize what he's doing. And the bullshit claim don't worry about who would pay $10 to see your movie, write the movie you'd want to see? Well guess what folks, you're writing a movie you'd pay $10 to see so once again, even if it's in different terms, you're still thinking about it.

Tillery, your point about set pieces is instructive. They are scalable. I talked about that way back in 2009 in this post. So 'big enough' is a relative term. A movie doesn't have to have dragons and millions of gargoyle monsters. The Final Struggle sequence in Whiplash, the last musical performance, all it is is a concert. But man, how BIG was that? One of the most amazing third act sequences I've seen in years! Your final point is also extremely relevant. I received some emails from people over the weekend who basically said the same thing: It's one thing for a writer who has made it in the business to say something like, "Write whatever you want regardless of the marketplace," but for writers trying to break into the business, that may not be the soundest advice. Some times, it's a good idea for a writer to put their story concept to the $10 ticket test. This goes back to a point in my original post: What works for Writer A may not work for Writer B. There is no single path to success. Finally, I think your point about how some writers just "naturally gravitate towards scenes with tension and drama" is instructive. To them, the advice to write from your gut, not your head may seem perfectly sound. But in part that's because they have a direct line to their creative gut. What about writers who either don't have that natural proclivity or have yet to develop that ability? This is true re story concepts as well. Writers who have been at the trade for years may be able to consider a story idea and immediately grok its potential. A younger / newer writer maybe not so much. A series of reality-based questions like who is your audience, will they be willing to pay $10 to see your movie could be invaluable as part of their overall learning experience as well as sussing out whether a story concept is strong enough to write on spec. I think I get what Brian is saying, basically attempting to push writers to write from their most creative place and not be so concerned with practical, marketing and economic concerns. There's certainly a need to hear that message, something I conveyed to Brian in my email, and indeed a point I have made multiple times here over the years. But there's also room on our collective message board for some of these questions raised here. Not for everyone necessarily, but for some. Thanks for you comments, Tillery!