Corrigan, blockbusters, etc.

One thing I found interesting about Corrigan's discussion of the major studios producing movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator, and are more about marketing than substance (case in point: high-concept films), is how incredibly applicable it is to other art forms, even though Corrigan discusses it as a uniquely cinematic phenomenon.  A particularly good example of this is novels.  Much as how Corrigan explained, the mainstream blockbusters that attract the highest amount of viewers are most frequently movies that are dumbed down and try to appeal to everyone (thus, appealing to no one really), while the movies that are generally considered to be better crafted, deeper, and more artfully done, while often critically acclaimed, do not receive anywhere near the same level of viewership and often aren't even shown in many theaters--and it's largely the same way with books too.  The writers that are most popular in any given time often are completely forgotten to history, while more obscure ones that did not attract much readership in their lifetime often become the geniuses of the generations succeeding them.  An interesting illustration of this is Herman Melville's works: his earlier works were rather typical adventure novels, and did very well commercially.  However, Moby Dick, which both he and the literary scholars who rediscovered him in the mid 20th century (and most people now) consider to be both by far his finest work, and a work of genius in general, was received with extremely little enthusiasm at the time of it's release, and did far worse than his earlier work.  

Another good example is someone like Stephen King: he is enormously popular, churning out bestseller after bestseller and has had dozens of movies made from his work, but does anyone really think that someone like him will be considered the greatest writer of our generation?  Does anyone even think that he will be considered as even an important author of his generation?  Another interesting point that his example brings up is the connection between blockbusters and the modern popular novel.  The focus of these books is all on story, and on keeping up a fast pace, with very little attention paid to language.  In a similar way as the blockbuster movie, these mainstream novels also appeal to the lowest common denominator and do not have anywhere near the same level of artistic precision (as ultimately, profit and marketing, not art, is the aim of such movies and books).

Now, I only used the example of books, but I feel like the same logic (i.e., that the mainstream version of a medium is profit driven, and therefore appeals to the lowers common denominator, etc.) applies rather easily to most other art forms.

On a separate note, this article reminded me of one I had read recently about the recent trend of American networks taking already popular foreign shows and making remakes of them (e.g., The Office, ABC's new remake of Life on Mars--the first episode of which looks almost EXACTLY the same as the original series--many reality tv shows, and countless other examples).  While I know that's TV and not movies, it shows the same motivation on the part of the studios: since they are mostly focusing on receiving reparations or the cost (and also profit obviously), they like an already neatly packaged product that is sure to sell.  And what easier way to do that than to take a show that has already had commercial success and simply tweak it a little?