It’s been a rather disappointing summer at the movies this year.

Most of the movies that came out were either rehashes of old concepts or simply uninteresting. Granted there were gems that stood out like “Toy Story 3” and “Inception,” but those movies can only do so much to charge up an otherwise dull summer. It makes it even more understandable why people complain about how movies today are either all sequels or boring, predictable stories that have been done to death over the course of time.

If this is the case, however, then why is it that movies like “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” do so badly? With a $90 million budget, “Scott Pilgrim” has only made a little over $30 million of it back, making it a box-office flop. Why? This movie was exactly what audiences have been wanting. The story about an idiotic slacker who wants to date a girl and has to fight off her seven evil exes is as fresh as they come in terms of stories; the video game-meets-real world visuals and fantastic fights made the movie visually entertaining and something new; and the dialogue was funny and witty.

Why, then, is it that this movie (which is clearly something new and different) getting the shaft while movies like “The Expendables” walk all the way to the bank with their clichés? It seems like people don’t understand that the reason why Hollywood keeps putting out tripe is because people pay them for it. This then makes the studios less likely to take a gamble on something as wildly different as “Scott Pilgrim” and just stick to an “Iron Man 2.”

It could be argued that “Inception” was quite a gamble itself with much of the story being a mystery or misconstrued through trailers, but it’s really more of a safe bet than anything. With names like Christopher Nolan and Leonardo DiCaprio, it’ll sell. Meanwhile, people like “Scott Pilgrim’s” Edgar Wright, who has only put out a couple cult flicks, and Michael Cera, who audiences seem to be tired of, are a gamble. Never mind the fact that the movie is flashy, frantic and funny and received positive reviews across the board; if it’s starring a type-casted actor and directed by someone British, it must not be worth seeing.

It’s because of this reasoning that it may be a long time before we ever get anything as bold as this movie was. All this says to Hollywood is “Please give me more of what I’ve already seen.”

It may be too late to save it, but I still highly recommend that everyone put their feelings aside and give “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” a try before it ends its short time in theaters this week. You won’t be disappointed.