American cinema is presently characterized by a high volume of remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels and other rehashes of existing material.

Of the 10 highest-grossing films of the weekend of Oct. 21, six were directly adapted from other works, two were sequels, one was a prequel and one was a remake. Notably, “The Thing,” which brought in $3 million over that weekend, was a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 remake of the 1951 film “The Thing from Another World,” which was itself adapted from the 1938 novella “Who Goes There?”

More than ever before, any license which can be counted on to draw viewers on the basis of name recognition is fair game, no matter how ill-suited the original product may be for film adaptation. Conventions which have been used in previous high-grossing movies are repeated ad infinitum, resulting in an endless stream of barely-distinguishable films.

An excellent example of both these phenomena can be found in “Battleship,” slated for release next summer. Ostensibly a film adaptation of the classic board game, “Battleship” will feature giant alien machines highly reminiscent of those from Michael Bay’s “Transformers” franchise.

“So much of Hollywood is run by businesspeople, and so many businesspeople say, ‘Hey, this one made money, so let’s make another one like it,’” professor Andrew Horton, editor of the book, “Play It Again, Sam: Retakes on Remakes,” and instructor of a course on movie remakes in OU’s film and media studies program. “If you look at most countries, at least four of the 10 highest-grossing films of the year will be American. That’s one reason they like the same old stories and the same special effects — you don’t have to read subtitles if you’re just watching things blow up.”

However, contrary to some broad stereotypes, remakes are not necessarily artistically vacuous cash-ins. Brian De Palma’s 1983 landmark gangster film “Scarface” has largely overshadowed the 1932 film of the same title upon which it was based. The classic Western “The Magnificent Seven” was based on Akira Kurosawa’s “The Seven Samurai,” which tells the story of seven warriors hired to protect a village from bandits. “The Magnificent Seven” recontextualizes this story by replacing its samurai with cowboys and feudal Japan with the American West.

Even the “Star Wars” films draw extensively from earlier works, particularly early sci-fi serials such as “Flash Gordon.” According to “Star Wars” creator George Lucas, the characters R2-D2 and C-3PO were inspired by the characters Tahei and Matashichi, two bumbling peasants from Kurosawa’s 1958 film “The Hidden Fortress.” That the original “Star Wars” trilogy was based in earlier works obviously did not dilute its potency.

The problem is not the practice of remaking films, but the profit motive which compels studios to shun risky innovation while endlessly recycling elements, which have been proven to make money. Though the apologists of capitalism often claim that capitalism naturally promotes innovation, the opposite is clearly demonstrated by the current stagnancy of American cinema.

The most talented filmmakers, whose work — however excellent — will never be as bankable as alien robots, often must operate outside of the Hollywood establishment. Horton cites Greek filmmaker Olga Malea as an example: “She knows how to make good comedies that work. One of her comedies is called ‘The Cow’s Orgasm.’ ... Here’s the pitch: Two girls in a small town want to lose their virginity with the handsome guy who works at the cow factory ... Are there special effects? No. Guys with guns? No. Just story and character.”

Unfortunately, a lack of mainstream promotion leaves the public unaware of many of these films.

The increasing homogenization of American cinema — at least in terms of what the public is actually exposed to — is an inevitable outcome of the profit motive operating in the film industry.

Zac Smith is a journalism junior.