Is there less originality in modern-day film?

This is something I've been wondering for some time. Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of remakes. I think it takes far more skill and initiative to create something completely original than to rehash a previous idea - though I appreciate that no one idea is completely original so it's a bit of a misnomer.

Still, it seems nowadays that most films revolve around a few basic themes: superheroes, sequels to existing franchises, and remakes. I'd say that makes up about 75% or more of all new mainstream releases - I could be wrong, and I often am, but that's just from my observations. There are notable exceptions, of course, but a lot of films I see recently just seem so unoriginal.

When you look at lists of films from the 1970s and 1980s - and even the 1990s, you see classic after classic - obviously there were plenty of duds in cinema at that time but there seemed to be far more originality and a far greater success rate.

Is Hollywood lacking in original ideas nowadays or is it as good - or better - as it's always been? Am I just ranting with a cynical eye?

I think you have a point. It seems that the majority of films are sequels, remakes or reboots. I don't think it's a lack of originality or creativity so much as that it takes a lot of money to make a film and the studios have to recoup that and make a decent profit on top. They can be pretty sure that "insert superhero name here" III will make $X because there is already an audience for it, and is therefore less of a gamble than an original story.
Not to say that every sequel/remake/reboot is bad, I have a couple of remakes in my top ten, and there's a few others that I prefer over the original movie.

__________________
“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

Actually, you're right about the profit element. That's undoubtedly the main reason, but I'd love to see some more originality from film-makers.

Is Hollywood and large-scale projects lacking originality today? Absolutely.

But I wouldn't argue that cinema, overall, is any more or less original than it was 30 years ago. The ratio of good/bad and original/unoriginal will almost always stay the same.

I agree with the basic idea of the thread but disagree a bit about the timing. I think it's been an issue since the 80s with the likes of Lucas & Spielberg showing the industry how to make money. Whilst what they created at the time was mostly quality the blueprint has been followed constantly since with less of a focus on the "art".

Personally I don't really have too much of a problem with it. There are lots of great movies made all around the world each year so if Hollywood is churning out crap I just don't watch it. However, if I feel like seeing something loud & "exciting" on the big screen I'll watch a big budget Hollywood film.

Nowadays we have so many choices. There is 70 years of great movies available at our fingertips so watch those and just avoid Hollywood if they aren't creating stories you want to see.

In the 1920s, Buster Keaton made at least one film a year with the plot:Keaton tries to woo a girl and fails, he falls asleep (sometimes), and afterwards he can do everything he couldn't before and impresses her.

__________________
Mubi

There are numerous screenwriters and filmmakers out there who have fresh, original ideas. I'm sure a majority of posters on this forum can come up with something 'different'. Unfortunately, funding and distributing a project is a very political and very convoluted process. Large-scale projects seldom -- if ever -- care about the quality of the story, but merely how profitable it can potentially be. The same applies, albeit to a lesser degree, with independent cinema. It may not be as confined, but your story needs to appear to have some level of profitability to it.

I know somebody who works in LA. He says a lot of projects in Hollywood begin with a producer coming up with a 'money-making' idea. He then hires a screenwriter to develop it and a filmmaker to depict it. Honestly, it's like a monopoly.

This. The reason one might come to this question though is because the majority are demanding art with low quality, so the heavier end of the ratio is tipped to them. Blame society, not Hollywood.

It's kind of an unfair question. There are lots of old movies that rely on cliches and, honestly, they tend to blur as much as newer ones do. I think the truth is that it's hard to find originality in film generally but some older films had the advantage of using an idea first, not necessarily best.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Wasn't trying to annoy anybody, of course, but just trying to get a conversation going and I think it's an interesting point.

I don't think anybody's annoyed. Certainly not me!

Hollywood exists solely to make money. They make superhero movies, remakes, and sequels because people pay to see them.

I think Matteo's right. There are still original films being made (I saw Holy Motors the other day, one of the most creative and original pieces of film-making I've seen for a long, long time), you just have to look a little harder now, away from Hollywood and to foreign markets and independent cinema.