People often say life imitates art. If this is the case, it would say a lot about our own lack of creativity, lack of uniqueness and ability to open ourselves to new ideas.

The lion’s share of movies produced today are re-makes of other films, sequels, are based on books or, to a lesser extent, are based on real life events. Creativity, such as it is, is a lost art. The movie/sequel trend speaks more to our own inability to embrace different forms of art. Rare is the instance when you will find a successful movie truly free of a direct link to some other book or film.

Of course, there are some who will say everything is influenced by everything else. We all influence one another. OK, this, of course, is much like one saying there probably has never been one original thought, except for man’s first original thought. Which influenced all thoughts thereafter which makes this whole argument moot, I suppose. It also makes for a flimsy point of view.

Often films which shouldn’t have been made once let alone twice, ahem Prom Night. The arguments people make for the remake genre is that younger people may have not seen the original film. To which I might suggest such new innovations as netflix and youtube.

Ironically, my aversion to the remake or movie based on the book film genre is that they do little to pay the homage to the original version that they are due. These films rarely live up to the original and misrepresent the original movie’s plot and message. This is the ultimate form of disrespect one can pay to the creators of the original production. Do you hear that? That would be Alfred Hitchcock rolling in his grave as he remembered once again what a travesty Vince Vaughn and D.J. Caruso did to his original films (Psycho and Rearview Window).

Laziness and an easily impressed public are the biggest culprits. Rather than using previous films as inspiration for their own creativity, film makers revive the roles of box office diehards, no pun intended. Why take the time, creative energy and risk to produce something unique, unknown with an unsure box office result when on can bank on the unoriginal, familiar and predictable? We are the ones to blame ultimately since it us who continue to settle for mediocrity and the usual.

The great thing about not making film about something that has been written about or about a figure that is not well known is that we are exposed to something new and maybe even learn something new. Now, Hollywood seems stale, predictable and played out. In unrelated news, Zac Efron is starring in a remake of the widely acclaimed 17 Again. Pause for collective yawn.

This is why the efforts of Paul Thomas Anderson, Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino are so laudable. Their art was not based on anything other than their own creative minds and unique perspectives.

In reality, television is much more creative than the film industry. From Star Trek to Sex And The City, television has been inspiring and driving the movie industry for decades. Of course, Sex And The City was a book in its original form. Some estimates say that somewhere between 60 to 80% of the movies we watch in theatres are based on books, comic books or television shows. Without the book or television industry, the movie industry would nary be able to produce a movie. On second thought, maybe that wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

So, then, why do people continue to watch dry, unoriginal, copy-cat films that are virtually solely based on other forms of art? Well, for one who wants to devote the time and energy to reading? Why make yourself think when you can allow the director to do so for you? Especially whenever a profit is possible, Hollywood is only more than willing to oblige you.

A more apropos reason why people watch contrived not-so-reality shows, dim witted sitcoms that perpetuate stereotypes and, to use the term liberally, competition shows on television and film is as George Costanza of Seinfeld fame stated, “Because it’s on TV.”

People will watch anything than to have to sit idly quietly with their thoughts, pursue an interest outside of the couch potato realm. Beyond being “entertained” (to each their own), I have heard people describe watching television and movies as being “therapeutic” or as being a way to “unwind.” However, watching mind-numbing television and movies are not the only ways to unwind. there are other ways to unwind. I think it is fair to say people used to unwind before television and film were invented. People used to do a thing called going for a walk and talking to other people. Alas, we are slaves to our devices.

I had made an informal vow to myself to attempt to always read the book version before I watch the film version of said book. Based on my informal estimated calculations, if I only took breaks for bread and water and quit my day job I might be able to read half the movies released each week. That is unless I ever wanted to sleep. So, I decided to read the book and forgo the movie.

We are all inspired and influenced by other people and other art forms. For instance, George Lucas was inspired by Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces. However, Lucas’s film had a much different take.

When we watch a movie based on books we are only getting the director’s perspective. We could view things quite differently. Of course, isn’t that what we want? Someone to tell us the story rather than figuring it out for ourselves? Therein lies the risk.

It’s much easier and safer to just copy a book or let someone else doing the thinking for us. It’s also more profitable and usually successful for directors to just copy. The difference between merely copying others and being influenced by others is what makes one person great and another person a success.