Haven't we always had reboots and sequels? I mean, look at Shakespeare—he recycled plots constantly. The real issue isn't that Hollywood uses existing IP, it's that they do it badly sometimes. But here's the thing: reboots and sequels aren't mutually exclusive with new ideas. Nolan's Batman wasn't just a sequel, it was a completely fresh take that required immense creativity. Same with Mad Max: Fury Road. These films didn't kill originality—they demanded it. Studios need safe bets to fund risky projects. Without the guaranteed revenue from a franchise, we'd lose the funding for original scripts like Get Out or Everything Everywhere All At Once. So no, reboots aren't killing creativity. They're subsidizing it.

Alright, let's break this down with a concrete example. You bring up Marvel, and I'll use that. The first Iron Man was a risk—a B-list superhero with a troubled lead actor. It worked. Now, sequels like Infinity War and Endgame? Those required weaving together a decade of stories, character arcs, and payoffs. That’s not lazy—that’s a creative puzzle. You’re assuming every sequel is a cash grab without effort, but that’s not logically sound. You say studios should get more funding from original scripts. Sure, Obsession did well. But that’s an outlier. Most original films flop. Studios use sequels as a hedge—a proven math equation. If we ban reboots, we don't magically get more original hits. We get fewer movies overall. The market decides, not nostalgia. Sequels and reboots are tools; misuse doesn’t make the tool evil.

Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I loved those original films you mentioned. But let me ask you this: did you know that in 1985, 11 of the top 20 highest-grossing films were sequels? The Empire Strikes Back, Rocky IV, Rambo II—the pattern hasn't changed, only our perception of it. You say sequels kill creativity, but that's a non sequitur. A premise isn't a creative outcome. The creativity lies in execution. The Godfather Part II is a sequel. Is that less creative than, say, a generic romantic comedy with a new title? No. Your argument assumes that every original script is inherently more creative than every reboot. That's false. I've seen dozens of terrible "original" films. The quality of the idea matters less than what you do with it. And here's the logical core: if sequels truly killed creativity, we'd see declining quality across the board. But we don't. We see both great and terrible sequels—just like we see great and terrible original films. Correlation isn't causation.

I remember watching The Empire Strikes Back as a kid, thinking it was better than the original. That sequel didn't kill creativity—it expanded a universe. You cite top 5 lists as proof, but that's cherry-picking data. What about The Godfather Part II? The Dark Knight? Both sequels, both masterpieces. Your market logic is flawed. You say people + good movies = higher market, but you're ignoring that people loved Endgame. It made billions. That's not a downward spiral—that's audience demand. If sequels were truly killing the market, they'd stop making them. But they don't, because we keep showing up. The real killer of creativity isn't sequels—it's risk aversion in development. A bad sequel is just a bad movie, same as a bad original. Blaming the format ignores the real problem: execution.