As most film critics and moviegoers are already sick of hearing, “Ocean’s Twelve” is set to open in theaters across the country Dec. 10.

The movie is sure to turn up huge profits with the return of its start-studded cast and will also benefit from a lack of competition. In what will probably be a highly entertaining and creatively bland film, “Ocean’s Twelve” will indeed make its $200 billion and ride off into DVD heaven next summer.

But what does it mean when a sequel is Hollywood’s biggest draw? And not just any money-driven sequel, but one based on a money-driven ’60s remake? It means Hollywood is tired of being innovative. They know, respect and are capable of creativity, but who wants to spend all their time and money thinking of new ways to captivate audiences when they can just recycle what already worked?

It takes months to years to make a film, so Hollywood is always months to years behind. They have to have a feel for what the audience wants next and usually start planning years ahead of time for the next trend in cinema. Since the onslaught of remakes, sequels and comic book adaptations, and the subsequent sequels to the remakes and comic book adaptations, Hollywood didn’t have to peer into the shallow American mind too hard, however. They just used what already worked and plugged in new faces.

In the past few years, we have seen a slew of comic book-based films. At first it was refreshing to see characters previously restricted to the two-dimensional world brought to life. While it was done before with Batman and Superman, films like “Spiderman” and “X-Men” pushed the visual limits as they wowed audiences with the latest special effects technologies such as CGI. Then we saw “Spawn.” Then we saw “The Punisher.” Then we saw “Daredevil.” Then we saw “The Hulk.” Then we saw “Spiderman 2.” Then we saw “X-Men 2: United.” These are all films about comics, they all raked in box office millions and they all were pretty much the same movie.

Worst of all, it isn’t over yet as “X-Men 3” and “Spiderman 3” are both set for 2006 and 2007 releases, respectively. It is the concept of supply and demand that got these movies made. They wouldn’t be produced if people weren’t going to see them and their predecessors. The solution? Stop supplying the demand for these unoriginal and trite movies and see something that isn’t a hack attempt at exploiting a proven commodity for money.

Now we see Hollywood brass investing in this trend in all types of films. The success of “Ocean’s Eleven” paved the way for other ’50s and ’60s remakes such as “The Manchurian Candidate” and every Adam Sandler film since “Mr. Deeds.” The success of those two films, TV series remakes like “Charlie’s Angels” and countless others have now helped to contribute to a solid foundation of mediocre and unoriginal remakes for years to come.

It’s as if producers get together and talk about what films they liked growing up, call the actors good looking and famous enough to star in them, and just like that, another blockbuster remake is born.

Need Proof? “Bewitched” starring Will Ferrell and Nicole Kidman coming in 2005, “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” starring Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka to be released in late 2005, “Be Cool,” the sequel to “Get Shorty,” coming in January, “The Ring Two,” “Meet The Fockers” and the unfortunately now playing “Fat Albert.”

There are also a couple of sequels out now that are based off of movies that nobody saw or cared about in the first place: “Seed of Chucky” the fifth, yes, fifth, installment of the Chucky saga, a saga that could have easily stopped after the second or third one. Also, “Son of the Mask,” the sequel to “The Mask” that has nothing to do with Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz and relies on the dancing baby special effect that worked in late-’90s advertising, will be released Feb. 18.

I only know of this movie because I remember when I went to see “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King,” the preview got booed so loudly that small children in the audience began crying. Oh yeah, I almost forgot the impending “XXX: State of the Union” without Vin Diesel. The movie sucked with Vin Diesel. Why make one without him?

I saved the best/worst coming attraction remake for last as 2005’s “Rumor has it.” It’s a film about a woman (Jennifer Aniston, the actress who plays the alphabet of emotions from A to A) who learns that her family was the inspiration for the book and film “The Graduate,” and she is the offspring of the film’s well-documented events. This is the equivalent to Hollywood urinating on its walk of fame. This would be like George W. Bush going into a war based off two old ones … oh, yeah, he did. Rob Reiner, who is directing the film, might as well go up to Mike Nichols and Dustin Hoffman, punch them in the stomach and then go to the bank to deposit his earnings.

The field of arts is driven by taking elements of past influences and incorporating them with new ideas to create a new genres or styles. By taking the same movies and simply re-shooting them, Hollywood is embarrassing itself by turning its back on the mentality that created the films they are remaking. “The Graduate” is a classic because it did things no other feature film ever did before. The concept of doing something unprecedented is simple, but process is not. It takes creativity and ingenuity.

It’s just too bad Hollywood currently has neither.