My hunch is that the TV biz is significantly crasser than the book biz, since the financial stakes are higher, and movies are likely to be the crassest of them all.
Just compare sci fi novels as a group to sci fi TV or movies. Of those groups, the novels are where you find the genuine works of art that reflect an artist's uncompromising vision, not to mention a far greater range of approaches.
On TV, everything needs to fit some pigeonhole. The Sleepy Hollow pilots on NBC and CW are the latest example. Why not at least go for a historical setting? Because its a harder sell for the audience. So, instead, they're just aping a familiar formula of a modern day cop show, with genre window dressing, with a female sherrif just to make sure we have the added insurance of unresolved sexual tension.
Movies are the worst. Even the good movies are dumbed down popcorn fodder, which is all Abrams Star Trek and The Avengers really are. They're competent and fun, but hardly great, ground breaking works of art.
Fuller might genuinely love what he's doing, but if he hadn't paid attention to pleasing his corporate masters, he'd never have gotten a green light to start with. The parallel between him using Universal's stable of movie monsters and Once Upon A Time using Disney movie characters is obvious me-too-ism. Universal owns NBC just as Disney owns ABC.
if crass motives didn't govern TV and movies, especially as you go more mass market, meaning network and blockbuster respectively, I'd expect to see a far greater range of creative approaches and genuine originality, instead of the depressing me-too-ism which characterizes both industries.