Yes, as it pulls out financing from other more innovative projects and rewards safe bets on already stablished brands, therefore inducing an incentive for writers and produces to play it safe with old products, and only create new products that can also become a rebootable franchise

Still having new products doesn't mean the reboot culture hasn't harm the creativity. Without it, producers will compete for the best sotries and bet stronger on them, there is a limited amount of money in the industry and it has to be distributed between productions, the more reboots there are, the more thin the budget for original products gets. Making more dificult the finance for original productions also makes the creatives more risk averse and therefore discourages bold ideas, making original creations less creative than they would have been in a world without reboots.

It survives, and always will, but the reboot culture creates an enviroment where creativity can not thrive, and that is the point of this debate. People like going to the movies, as a social event, they just need a good story. If there were no reboots, movie theaters will still be full, but all the viwers will go to the original creators. Antother factor is influence, future creators get inspired by the culture they are surrounded by, the more reboots, the leass creative is the enviroment, the less creative the future creators will become. Reboots train societe to like preductability instead of innovation and creativity, which will eventualy kill creativity as a general condition for the sector, reducing it to very small indie productions with very limited cultural breakthrough