PRO PARADIGMS: When writing my first projects, I was giving only consideration to my story. The rewrites and rewrites made me learn that most of the time, there are smart solutions to make things better for everybody. So by now, I work for the others from the beginning, while outlining my story. My equation is something like (target + genre)*concept => budget => actors + settings + SFX, and I try to compare what I want to do with released movies. I didn't choose this way just to be a produced "schmuck with an Underwood" (I'm now a retired man earning a good living and I don't need to sell anything). I do this to write better. that's like rewriting: that helps me to find better ideas, doing things simpler, removing clichés, deus ex machina, or finding better developments ... fixing all these little defects we do while sketching a first draft, and that are very hard to fix into a 110 pages script. Tell a story is a writer's job. You just need a printer or the internet to share it. Making movies is a collective job. Unless you are a one-man-band cinematographer + actor, you share the creative process with a director, a technical crew, actors ... and you need to find money to make it born and the audience to make it live. So you may be an artist, but you're not a screenwriter if you disregard this, IMO. And most of the time, this helps you going further into your story and improve it. This doesn't mean that you can do only simplistic things, quite the opposite. You can write sequences or monologues of ten pages (YES!), give your story a non conventional structure (YES!), make the water red and the sky green (YES!) as long as it serves your story... This remains your own domain and this is your personal choice because technicians and actors know how to realize it. However you're like a composer: you can compose jazz, rock, classic, etc. but you must write differently pieces for a trio, a quartet, a brass band, a chamber orchestra, a symphonic orchestra ... and you must respect what each instrument can do: excepted for bagpipes, wind intruments can play only one sound at a time, a violin cannot be played on more than two nearby strings at a time, etc... and the composer must know what each instrument can do and what the best human performer can play on each instrument. I'm convinced that Dave Brubeck, Gershwin, Stravinsky, Bach ... respected this. Were they not great artists? ANTI PARADIGMS: To carry on with this comparison, Dave Brubeck, Gershwin, Stravinsky and Bach didn't compose the same music: - Brubeck and Gershwin used piano, saxophone, clarinet ... Gershwin and Stravinskty used symphonic orchestra. Today, composers use computers... All of this didn't exist at Bach's Time. - The four played claviers, but very differently: at Bach's time, performers were used to play with only four fingers of each hand. This is Bach who added the use of the thumbs. Then, performers and composers found many other ways to improve claviers playing. So today, Bach could not compose or play music without some additional training (for him, a few days should be enough, I think). IMO, creativity is there: trying new tools and new ways, to produce things different provided that it leads to something. Do you imagine Leonard Bernstein, the Beatles or Pierre Boulez composing and playing the same music as Bach? This would not be a progress, this would be a decline. This is why I don't like manners like the three act structure, the hero's journey, the flawed hero... when being set up as compulsory patterns, just as it is taught by consultants, doctors,... since Campbell, Field & Co created this new religion. What makes a story good is its ability to captivate. What makes a good story great is what makes it different, clever, innovative.