So War of the Worlds is to hit our big screens this summer, just another big budget remake of something they should have left alone. If it's not an old film, it's a foreign film, a book or a comic that's being brought to cinema near you.

As with most things, however, it's the degree not the substance that causes the problem. There's nothing wrong with remaking films, or making films of books, in of itself; the problem is when this practice, or any one single practice, starts to dominate the industry.

Of course there's a very good reason why this is happening: financial risk assessment. Obviously films are big business and stupendous amounts of money can be made or lost depending on the success of a title. With Star Wars Episode One for example, Lucas made his money back through merchandising BEFORE THE FILM OPENED. All the box office and post release merchandising was pure profit.

Of course very few titles carry such a guarantee of financial return, so why gamble on an original script when you can make something with an established audience? Even if the film ends up being crap, you're certain to get decent size audiences, at first anyway, consisting of fans of the original version.

Look at your TV listings for tonight. News, documentaries, hobby shows, docu-soaps, reality gameshows, films and repeats. Where's the original fiction? The small screen sees the same shrivelling of creativity as the big, only there they deal with it differently. With so many channels now competing, it's the cost not the return they consider and reality TV is cheap TV. No writers, no actors, no sets, no costumes.

Unfortunately for us, artistic creativity is always trumped by economics and so we end up with the same, financially safe crap over and over again. The same is true of books, with highstreet retailers like Waterstone's being forced to follow the supermarkets and concentrate on a narrower range of mass market bestsellers like the fucking Da Vinci Code.(1) though I must declare a vested and bitter interest in this particular area.

An editor from Penguin considered a project of mine recently. Instead of a standard, formulaic rejection letter, he actually took the time to tell me what he really thought, (believe me that's pretty rare though much appreciated.) He said he enjoyed my work and that he thought it was innovative, unfortunately he didn't think it would sell well enough for them to take it. Various other publishers and agents have said they like what I write, but that it lacks 'commercial viability'.

(remember, artistic integrity = poverty)

So at the end of the day the companies producing popular art face the same problem as our politicians. Just as remaining in power has to override all principles and morals for a politician, (otherwise they can't implement the policies they care about,) the people making films, books and TV shows have to do what pays the best or they won't be able to make anything at all. Yet again, the system itself is the problem.

With TV we currently find ourselves in the bizarre situation where the adverts are probably the most innovative and artistic things on, the Talk Talk links on Big Brother at the moment for example, (the aerial pictures made up of people.)

Speaking of Big Brother, I must admit, to my shame, that I have been vaguely following it. I could try to blame this on my girlfriend, who does follow it, or just the old 'car crash' factor, where you have to look just because it's so bad, but no. I have to take the responsibility myself, even if it does make me feel dirty.

What did occur me seeing it last night, was how the show has subtly changed over the various series. Initially, in order to justify the format, Channel 4 had to be seen to be taking care of the housemates. Big Brother was a supportive, if invisible, shoulder to cry on.

As the show has become established it has changed. The trend has been towards making the house a more unpleasant place to be and this is for two reasons. Firstly the format has been accepted and no longer needs to be justified. Secondly, the more established the show is, the less novel it becomes, changes have to be made in order to keep the viewers.

Last year tension built and built until eventually there was an actual fight. This year there have already been various minor physical confrontations and we're only three weeks in. The contestants, tasks and layout have all obviously been chosen specifically to facilitate friction between the housemates.

Now Channel 4 aren't stupid, they've only done this because it keeps people watching, and that's what's worrying. How many of the reality based shows on our screens feature confrontation and stressful situations? It's the common denominator. We like seeing other people suffer. Why?

One possible answer is that it makes us feel better about ourselves. The media age has established a situation where we all compare ourselves to the people we see on TV. Initially this worked simply by showing us the people we could be if only we did this or bought that, but reality TV has turned this on its head. We might not be as rich or pretty as the people on the adverts, but at least we're better than the people in the programmes.

The real question is of course, why the hell are we measuring ourselves against the TV? What does it say about our own general sense of self worth that we rely on such comparisons? It's easy to forget that there is a world beyond TV, that there are millions of things that are never on TV but instead lie waiting in the real world outside.

Two stories have been given high billing on the TV news recently, both concerning scientific studies. One said that if you smoked heavily and were obese you aged more quickly. The other said that if you ate too much red or processed meat you had a higher risk of getting bowel cancer.

So if you smoke 40 a day and you're a big fat bastard who eats burgers and ready meals all the time, you're going to get sick an die. Is that news? Were there really no other stories more important than that? Maybe tomorrow there'll be an exclusive BBC report about how scientists now believe that going out in the rain may get you wet. Meanwhile people are using money we give them to murder and steal. What the hell is going on?

footnotes

(1) The Da Vinci Code sucks! It's the least original, shallowest thing I've ever read. If you want to read about conspiracies try 'FOUCAULT’S PENDULUM' by Umberto Eco or, for a less academic but far more intense mindfuck, try ‘THE ILLUMINATUS TRILOGY’ by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. I can’t recommend these titles enough, they may not have sold millions of copies or be forthcoming films, but they piss all over Dan Brown.