By Prakhar Shukla
In the modern entertainment industry, the balance between artistic integrity and commercial success has become increasingly skewed in favour of profit. Film studios, publishing houses, and other creative industries have shifted their focus from originality to the mass reproduction of existing intellectual properties (IPs) for financial gain. This trend, most evident in Hollywood’s reliance on remakes, sequels, and franchise expansions, has led to an industry that prioritises safe, marketable content over innovation. Similarly, in Bollywood and other major film industries, formulaic action films and star-driven spectacles overshadow smaller, thought-provoking projects. As a result, the fundamental purpose of art—its ability to challenge, inspire, and provoke thought—is often sidelined.
The resurgence of live-action remakes, cinematic universes, and franchise extensions exemplifies Hollywood’s increasing preference for financial security over creative risk-taking. The live-action adaptations of The Lion King (2019), Aladdin (2019), and The Little Mermaid (2023) demonstrate a pattern of capitalising on audience nostalgia rather than introducing fresh perspectives. These films often fail to bring significant narrative or thematic innovation, instead relying on high-budget visual effects and minor updates to maintain the illusion of change. The financial success of these projects—The Lion King (2019) grossed over $1.6 billion worldwide—reinforces the notion that originality is secondary to marketability.
This issue extends beyond Disney. The broader entertainment industry has adopted a similar strategy, with sequels and franchise expansions dominating the box office. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Star Wars spin-offs, and the continuous expansion of the Harry Potter universe through Fantastic Beasts exemplify how studios prioritise longevity over fresh storytelling. This phenomenon raises concerns about the role of art in the modern era—should its primary function be to generate revenue, or does it have a higher cultural responsibility?
The problem of profit-driven filmmaking is not exclusive to Hollywood. Bollywood, one of the largest film industries in the world, faces a similar crisis, where high-budget, star-studded action films often overshadow more original and meaningful stories. In recent years, films like Pathaan (2023) and Tiger 3 (2023) have dominated the Indian box office despite relying on formulaic plots, extravagant action sequences, and superficial storytelling. Meanwhile, films that explore deep, socially relevant themes—such as Court (2014), The Lunchbox (2013), or Ship of Theseus (2012)—struggle to receive the same level of mainstream attention and commercial success.
Bollywood’s increasing reliance on spectacle-driven cinema reflects a broader shift in the industry, where profit considerations dictate creative choices. Scripts are often designed to cater to mass audiences rather than to challenge them intellectually. Remakes of classic Bollywood films, such as Coolie No. 1 (2020) and Kabir Singh (2019), further reinforce the idea that the industry prefers to recycle successful formulas rather than invest in bold, original storytelling. The commodification of art in Indian cinema thus mirrors Hollywood’s approach, raising the same fundamental question: is art being reduced to a mere tool for financial gain?
Walter Pater and the aesthetic movement of the late 19th century championed the idea of “art for art’s sake”—the notion that art should exist independently of moral, political, or economic concerns. This philosophy contends that the intrinsic value of art lies in its ability to evoke beauty and emotion rather than its ability to generate profit. However, in an era where profitability determines creative decisions, this ideal is increasingly challenged.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s concept of the culture industry further critiques this trend. According to their work in Dialectic of Enlightenment, mass-produced entertainment is designed to sustain capitalism rather than foster critical thinking or genuine artistic expression. Under this system, art becomes a commodity, stripped of its autonomy and reduced to a mere product tailored to consumer demands. The commercialisation of art erodes its capacity to provoke introspection, leading to a cycle where studios create content based on market trends rather than artistic merit.
The widespread prioritisation of profit in creative industries raises fundamental questions about the nature of art itself. If artistic endeavours are primarily driven by financial incentives, does that diminish their cultural and philosophical significance? While commercial viability has always been a factor in artistic production, the modern entertainment landscape suggests a tipping point where financial motivations override artistic ones.
Jean Baudrillard’s concept of hyperreality provides further insight into this phenomenon. According to Baudrillard, modern culture is dominated by simulations—copies of reality that replace genuine experiences. The endless cycle of reboots and remakes contributes to this hyperreality, where audiences consume slightly altered versions of familiar stories rather than engaging with new artistic expressions. This raises the concern that, rather than experiencing true creativity, audiences are simply consuming nostalgia repackaged as novelty.
As studios continue to prioritise profit over originality, the future of artistic expression remains uncertain. While financial stability is a necessary component of any industry, the over-commercialisation of creative fields threatens to strip art of its core purpose. The dominance of sequels, reboots, and franchise expansions suggests a landscape where risk-taking and innovation are increasingly rare commodities.
However, it is possible to strike a balance between commercial success and artistic integrity. The challenge moving forward is for creators and audiences alike to demand more from the industry—supporting original works, encouraging risk-taking, and recognising that art’s value cannot be solely measured by its box office returns. If art is to retain its cultural significance, it must not be reduced to a mere tool for profit but rather be allowed to thrive as an expression of human creativity and imagination.
Support Our Journalism
The global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today—with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors—is doing just that. Sustaining this requires support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon
