Steven, your thoughts echo mine (or mine yours!) very much. For example this:

I think the reason your character approach (inside-to-out) works better than the paradigmatic approach is that paradigms impose a structure before the writer even begins; they become a wall between the writer and the storytelling. The audience won’t get very involved in a story that the writer wasn’t involved in to start with.

I think much of this instinct among aspiring screenwriters is due to two things: (1) They want to take the easiest route possible to get to Fade Out. (2) The gestalt message from all the how to books is to reduce screenplay structure to plot.

That’s why I believe a character driven approach is the best antidote to this type of thinking. Even if a writer ends up with a simple plot — and there is nothing wrong with that to be sure — if that story universe is inhabited by complex, compelling characters, then you end up with quality stories like Manchester by the Sea, Carol, 12 Years a Slave, Eighth Grade, Ex Machina, The Florida Project, Juno, Short Term 12, Whiplash, and on and on.

And as you have just said and I have argued often on this blog, people have seen, heard, or read tens of thousands of stories, and with the innate structure of Beginning — Middle — End, they are better off trusting their own instincts as long as they follow the characters into and through the story-discovery process, while acknowledging a few key expectations on the part of movie development people, e.g., first act generally between 20–30 pages, a major reversal at the end of Act Two, etc.

This doesn’t mean a writer can’t have a complex plot. Absolutely! Most audiences enjoy movies which are both emotionally and intellectually involving. But the best way in my view to get to the plot is through the characters.

Anyhow, we have hit this subject a lot in comments over the years. That said, folks keep churning out outside-in / formulaic scripts.

Begin with characters. End with characters. Find the story in between. That pretty much says it all.

Again, Steven, thanks for your observations.