After decades reviewing Hollywood movies, film critic Richard Roeper says todays film industry is marked by a major aversion to risk.In an interview with Fox News Digital, the former Chicago Sun-Times critic said Hollywood has grown too cautious to produce original or comedic films, fearing backlash or box-office failure if a concept doesnt work or risks offending audiences."And it's a lot easier in a lot of studio executives' offices, I think, to say, Listen, let's just do a remake of this, or let's do another Star Wars universe spin-off and not take a chance. Because if I take a big swing on a $125 million dollar original movie, and it bombs, I'm gonna be out of a job," Roeper said.COUNTRY STAR ZACH BRYAN TEASES NEW SONG 'BAD NEWS' CONDEMNING ICE RAIDS, 'FADING' OF THE RED, WHITE AND BLUERoeper, who co-hosted alongside the late Roger Ebert on the film review show "At The Movies with Ebert and Roeper," remarked how several of the movies he enjoyed this year including "Sinners" and "Weapons" were great because they were original ideas and not reboots or sequels."What I liked about Sinners and there was a recent movie called Weapons that's doing very well right now is that these are original stories. We get so many remakes and reboots and prequels and sequels," he said.Roeper continued, criticizing Hollywoods tendency in recent years to remake beloved franchises."The remake is almost never as good. So, they do 'Roadhouse," he said, mentioning the 2023 reboot starring actor Jake Gyllenhall. "Well, we have the Patrick Swayze Roadhouse."He continued, "They do Fatal Attraction. Well, we have the Michael Douglas, Glenn Close classic. Those are all out there, and they redo them."He also mentioned a classic Harrison Ford legal drama that was remade into a streaming series he claimed isn't as good as the original."Presumed Innocent, which was a great movie with Harrison Ford, a perfectly constructed legal thriller, and then they turn it into a multipart limited series and stretch it out and flesh it out and make changes, and none of those changes were better," Roeper said.The critic said that even if a remake or reboot is good, its still an imitation of the original idea."Its like a cover band, a really good cover band that you see at your local street fair or festival, and you're like, Wow, they do a really good job of sounding like the Rolling Stones. But guess what? I can still listen to the Rolling Stones."BARI WEISS JOINS CBS NEWS AS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, PARAMOUNT BUYS FREE PRESS FOR $150 MILLIONWhen asked if he believes that there has been a decline in the number of comedy movies being made in recent years, Roeper told Fox News Digital, "Thats absolutely accurate."He noted that there arent many comedies made today, at least compared to the number that were made in the "70s and the 80s and the 90s.""But you know, I look back at, you know, the 70s and the 80s, Animal House and Caddyshack and, you know, so many great films so many great comedies Revenge of the Nerds, and even the John Hughes comedies I do miss that when it felt like there was a good comedy coming out a couple of times a month."Roeper claimed that the lack of raunchy comedies today is due to studios not wanting to risk offending audiences."I think if you came with a script for, you know, something like Blazing Saddles or National Lampoons Animal House or Stripes, yeah, I think you'd have a lot more difficulty getting all those jokes through now because there'd be this preemptive level, you know, within the rewriting process and the production and then the editing, where like, Oh, you know, we can't say that, or We might offend this"Roeper said that modern audiences tend to condemn a film as offensive or insensitive without having even seen it. "They just hear that it's about this subject, or they see a joke in a trailer," he said, suggesting that this type of piling on makes studios even more reluctant to make comedy films.The critic mentioned that one film genre has risen up to replace the comedy film."For whatever reason, it seems to me like the horror film has replaced the raunchy comedy the R-rated horror film. There are so many Blumhouse movies, and a lot of them are really well done. But it seems like there's a new horror movie every week in theaters, and a new comedy only four or five times a year."BILL BURR BLASTS CRITICS OF SAUDI ARABIA COMEDY FESTIVAL VISIT IN EXPLETIVE-LADEN INTERVIEWRoeper also reflected on how film criticism has changed over the years. He lamented how major outlets dont seem to value full-time film critics any longer.He accepted a buyout earlier this year to leave the Chicago Sun-Times, the same outlet that published reviews by Ebert until his death in 2013. Another Chicago outlet, the Chicago Tribune, got rid of its film critic position in August, an end to the role that was occupied by legendary film reviewer Gene Siskel for years."You know, I love the fact that Chicago still has two newspapers, and they still compete to break stories. I do find it sad that the newspapers of Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert do not have film critics anymore ... So that has definitely changed."Still, he noted that the change is reflective of the fact that the news business is changing, but it doesnt mean that film criticism is dying. He said that the art form is thriving through different media."Every time a film critic position like that at a traditional journalistic outlet is eliminated, people say, Oh, is this the is this the death of film criticism? And in some ways, this is the golden age for film criticism and there's a real democracy, because everybody can be a film critic," he said, noting the relevance of review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes as well as peoples ability to review films and connect directly to audiences on social media.In addition to writing film reviews as a contributor to RogerEbert.com, Roeper hosts a podcast called "The Richard Roeper Show," where he reviews films and talks about industry news. He said he enjoys being able to have conversations on social media as well."I do love the fact that, you know, you can have the conversation on social media in a way. So, if I go on Twitter [now X] and say, Here's what I think about this movie, boom, you get responses. And I know sometimes things can get rough on social media, but in my personal experience, 95 percent of the people responding to me, they just want to talk about movies or TV.""And I love the fact that there's still such passion for movies and for TV series. You know, when a trailer for Superman drops, you get all kinds of, you know, millions and millions of people talking about it. I think that's still pretty cool."Roeper added that he believes film criticism is more necessary than ever "because there's so much material out there."CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST MEDIA AND CULTURE NEWSHe also added that its important for getting the word out about great films that fly under the radar but that audiences should still see."I think the key for film criticism and the necessity of it is to tell people about maybe a smaller film that they might not even have in their market, you know? A movie will open in just a couple of markets New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and somebody in Baltimore, somebody in the heartlands, somebody in Texas might say, Oh, I'll I'm gonna look for that movie because I know now at least it's gonna come to my streaming platform in a month."Roeper mentioned that one of the most brilliant facets of Ebert was that, despite his elite credentials, he always considered what the average, hardworking American would want to spend his money on at the theater when writing his film reviews."One of the things I loved about Roger Ebert was that, you know, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner. He was an amazing writer. He was a brilliant man, but he always thought of the person who was gonna spend their eight bucks, now ten bucks, twelve bucks, fifteen bucks Should they see the movie?"CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPRoeper added that it is the same audience he prefers to write for as well.