Originality does not cost money. EVERYONE has the resources necessary to be original.
But... That's what I've been saying...
And I do think we can agree that on general, big shot company movies will have higher quality of visuals, music and acting compared to smaller budget productions.
No they don't. Unless you're talking about visual effects, or if it's a really small budget production. Many small budget produtions have amazing visuals, great acting and sometimes music too. Also I don't know why you're only focused on movies.
There's no thing as "the companies that have the money and influence to do that (be original and bold)"
I did not say that. You're not reading my posts very carefully. You added a parenthesis that had no reason to be there.
The only thing money will get you is quality, and technology.
Why do you think money will get you quality?
If you want your movie to be experienced in an original or creative way (3D etc.)
Just a side note, 3D is neither creative or original.
you might have to put up with some money.
Yes, I already said that for certain genres of art that require a lot of money, like a big sci fi adventure or something.
And because it costs loads of money (at least in the beginning to develop) these creative ways of experiencing movies are often tried on unoriginal but popular/safe stories.
These are not "creative ways", they've been around for long enough that it's gotten old already. It's not interesting if the "creative" and "original" aspect of all these movies is the same.
I explicitly said it wouldn't.
I know. But you responded to my post, where that is the kind of point I made.
It doesn't, that's what I've been trying to say...
Then you shouldn't had responded to a post trying to discuss copyrights 
Again, you should read my posts more carefully, because I already explained to you exactly what my objection with your post was, and it's not about whether or not we need copyright laws.
With quality I mean everything that is measurable. Fidelity, visuals, precision, acting, audio, effects.
How is "acting" or "visuals" something measurable? Of all these things, the only things that are ACTUALLY measurable is fidelity, and to an extent the audio and the effects.
Quality isn't necessarily the overall goodness of the art, but the overall goodness of the work put into making the art.
That definition is new to me. What is the "goodness of the work put into making the art"? Is the directing and writing of a film not work put into making it? I think you're trying to say that you consider "quality" to be an art work being competent in its most technical aspects. Which isn't really what I consider the quality of art.
It doesn't necessarily make it a better piece of art, but it makes it easier to appreciate. What good is a piece of art if you can't appreciate it because of bad quality?
That is only really applicable if the "quality" is distractingly bad. Although really great technical competence can be very impressive sometimes and greatly enhance the work, but that's not very common.
What do you count as pandering and what is appealing then? That's what I've been asking for a while now, even if I didn't spell it out clearly: What do you mean by pandering?
pander:
1.To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses: "He refused to pander to nostalgia and escapism" (New York Times).Well, I'm pretty sure that's just wrong. Capitalism will lead to originality. I don't know exactly how much, but you said it yourself: without originality the consumers will get bored. Demand will increase for originality, and the art industry will deliver at their own pace.
That's not exactly how it happens usually. What happens is that the original thing happens first, and then the industry adjusts. Original ideas would come anyways.
I did in a previous post in detail.
Please refer me to it.
Guess I didn't, but I thought I did, oops. I think I thought that post out but for some reason I didn't make it or I forgot to post it or something. My bad. Well, in short, there are always many artists who are just driven to innovate, regardless of the profit they can make, just because they want to. It's been so even before capitalism was a thing, and profit not having anything to do with it is evidenced by all the people who try to innovate or have tried to innovate, even though in many cases they know it probably leads to less profit, instead of more.
Capitalism does lead to an improvement in quality (as I'm using the word; to basically make it easier to appreciate the art for what it is). It's observable in every art industry.
I can only agree to this if you are referring to stuff like CGI, and fidelity, and whatnot.
New original and interesting ideas springing up and gaining traction? That's just the art-equivalent of entrepreneurship. Why do they gain traction? Because people learn about the art and start demanding it.
Yeah, they gain traction because people learn about it and start demanding it. What's the point? I don't see why it's the art equivalent of enterpreneurship either.
Capitalism does not mean "muh big companies does everything". And independent single person making something themselves and distributing it to the public themselves is also part of capitalism.
Going by that logic you can attribute literally anything that happens in the world to capitalism, or any other system people are under, because the people are part of that system. What I'm saying is that a system that revolves around maximizing profit isn't a particularly good basis for creation of original art.