I specifically said several posts ago I was referring to big budget stuff because that's where the money is, some genres you can't really do low budget at least very well, and it's also what the studios care about.
Really?
You know that Hollywood puts out something like 500 to 600 movies every year? (cite: statista.com) How are they creatively bankrupt when they are making hundreds of movies that aren't sequels and such?
If they don't care about anything but blockbusters... why make the other 500+ movies?
Did anyone actually bother with the links I provided earlier comparing 90s movies with the big hits mist of which are in the last 20 odd years. There's only a few original ones there.
Your original statement was, and I quote: "Hollywood doesn't really do new movies." This is demonstrably false.
The shift to "blockbusters" amounts to a moving of goalposts. I don't know that anyone's been really satisfied by the justification for that move.
I think there's also a bit of a misunderstanding about "blockbuster" - a blockbuster is a movie that is highly popular and financially successful. Hollywood can't reliably make a blockbuster. It makes movies that it *hopes* are blockbusters. And they often miss. It is the audience that makes it a blockbuster or not.
You then get to ask yourself - is it that Hollywood doesn't make blockbusters, or is it that when Hollywood makes a really new film, we don't go out to see it in droves so it isn't a blockbuster? You haven't identified the causal element here.