I thought it would be a generation thing (popular stories repeating themselves every 10 years, so they can grab the next generation of readers/watchers.)

Has mainstream comics have been repeating their stories a lot faster then normal?

The superhero comics such as Spiderman and Batman have been retelling the same stories for years, but I also noticed that anime and some manga has been doing it too. DBZ, Yu GI OH, FMA, Pokemon and Evangeleon for instance.

Will mainstream superhero and other popular stories go on indefinitely?

Can reader's interest change this or do they make us interested by not having much else in the mainstream?

If you believe Joseph Campbell, humanity has been telling the same story over and over again for something like four thousand years: the hero's journey. The problem with mass media is that since the material is more readily available to people, the repetition becomes all the more evident.

The problem with mainstream comics companies is that every ten years or so they try to retell their basic stories to grab a new generation of readers, but what really happens is that no new readers appear, but instead the old collectors have to contend with their continuity being messed over with for the sake of a fake "accessibility". Look at what happened to Marvel's Ultimate line, it was founded on the principle of accessibility but in ten years it became the same mess of continuity of the main Marvel U, so they had to do an event to rewrite it all. Or they felt they had to, I'm not sure it was all that necessary.

The reason is... it works. Just look at Avatar. That was one of the most cliche ridden stories I've ever watched, yet people flocked to it. Why? Because it's familiar.

That's why Hollywood is been in remake syndrome for the past few years. There is less risk involved. And the comic book industry follows the same train of thought. Comic books are very niche, and despite what may be advertised are still only followed by a small percent of the public. And an even smaller percent of them are probably willing to read anything different from what they have been reading for the past ten to fifteen years.

So we can blame the mainstream, but if the public isn't clamoring for it, why offer it?

Everyone tells the same sort of stories. I can't remember who wrote it, but there is a paper out there that documents the 7 archetypal stories that show up in 99% of all fiction. That other 1%? Weird experimental stuff. I don't hate experimental work by any means, but since it's experimental sometimes it falls flat on its ass.

The way I see it, stories are kind of like recipes. The ingredients already exist, but they're not what people enjoy about a good dish. What people enjoy, and what makes a dish unique, is how those ingredients go together.

If you're truly sick of what the mainstream offers, here's a tip: don't support it. Don't buy tickets to mainstream movies, watch mainstream shows, etc. The people putting these things out don't care about the opinion of one person; what they care about is how much money it makes. So refusing to give them your money is a much more powerful statement than going to see a movie and complaining about it. Besides, it's in the underground/fringe groups that innovations are much more likely to occur. There's not as much financial risk for the creators, so they feel much more free to take risks and play.

Somebody, I don't know who, a writer (maybe George R.R. Martin or Robert Silveberg?), said that there's only one kind of story "Certain person chooses certain goal and takes necessary steps in order to acommplish it, ecounters obstacles and enemies, struggles against them and either archieves one's goal, fails at doing it or chooses another goal and start again".

It doesn't matter what kind of story you tell. What matter is what you want to tell. If your message is original, that's half of sucess. The other thing is that you can always use different narrative tools, making similiar plot very different. For example - Neon Genesis Evangelion and RahXephon. If we would sumarry their plots, we would see that their basis structure is similiar and they share few plot points and similiarities. But they had completly different message (NGE tells about loniless and unability to fit into society, while RahXephon tells about growing up and accepting changes in and around you), making them complelty different. They also focus on different aspects of story or have some details that drastically changes the way similiar at first sight plot points affects the whole plot. Like "The Organization puts main character under the care of older woman, and he moves to her house" plot point. Both NGE and RahXephon have it - Shinji moves to Mistato's place, Ayato to Haruka's. But there's difference - Haruka doesn't live alone, but with younger sister and uncle. Shinji spends time with alcoholic, lonely woman that is trying very hard to break the ice between them and be mother to him and falls miserably -i t only deepen his feelings of loniless and misunderstanding. Meanwhile Ayato ecounters warmth of real family, whose members love and care about each other - this place becomes sort of paceful island in dangerous sea of life, when he can rest and seek support in problems and words of advice in doubt. Little detail and look how it changes whole plot.

Also, using certain cliches and tropes isn't necesarrly bad, as long as you manage to do something original with them. Another anime for example - Code Geass. It uses giant amount of cliches, but twist them around, put on their heads and plays with in order to make something new from them. For example, main character and his antagonists it's classic Gundam hero-villain relationship. Ace pilot with powerfull mecha fights against mysterious, masked chaos-wrecker. Amuro fights Char, Kira fights Rau, Seabook fights Iron Mask. But in Code Geass the trick is that ace pilot is not our hero - it's Zero, masked terrorist we're supposed to be cheering for. Similiar in Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann - it has mountain of cliches, may be as well enteirly made of them, there's nothing in Kamina or Simon that we haven't seen before. But it's the way anime serves it all to us that makes it original and interesting, that makes you sit and watch with a flushed face.

Original doesn't mean "something that we heven't ever seen before". It may also means "something we seen already, but done in way that we haven't ever seen before". Sometimes it's not idea that matters, but the way it's used. Not the meal but how it was cooked determines how it will taste.

If you wanna come up with something original, read nonfiction then create fiction out of it.

Generally speaking, especially in books and in comics, publishing companies like to produce what they know will sell. Because a Batman/Superman crossovers have always done well DC will continue to publish them, this isn't to say that unusual and original stories and comics won't attract readers-- they do. The trouble with new and original material is that it's risky. From a publisher's point of view publishing a new book is an investment of at least several thousand dollars, if a book does poorly the publisher can loose a lot of money, this is especially a problem in comics where publishers can only publish so many flops before going under completely. It's unfortunate but taking a risk with new material isn't always rewarded.

kyupol
If you wanna come up with something original, read nonfiction then create fiction out of it.

Ironically, that's been done. Many, many times. You're on the right path, though. Nah, the best way to come up with at least some original characters, dialogue, etc. is to experience real life for yourself. Go travelling, join a club, people watch. It's all a valid source of inspiration (and is, in fact, THE source of inspiration; every piece of fiction can trace its way back to real life). If you just read nonfiction, you're getting other peoples' experiences, not your own. Your own experiences will be unique.

I'll have to concur with notions made by timethief and God of War.

I'm definitely one of those people who think that they're aren't any new stories out there. I'm pretty sure that every story that exists is just a variation on one or several of a couple of narrative archtypes.

How many stories can you name off the top of your head where a lone hero or a posse of heroes go on a long and arduous quest? How about one where a man and a woman who dislike each other are forced together for some reason? And, over the course of the ordeal, they fall in love for some reason.

There's also the god that dies and gets resurrected. That one was ancient before Jesus pulled it off. And, of course, there's that whole "reluctant hero" bit perfected by Joseph Campbell.

It's impossible to do something that hasn't been done a billion times already. If you try hard enough or get lucky, however, you can end up doing an interesting version of such an archtype.

Air Raid Robertson
There's also the god that dies and gets resurrected. That one was ancient before Jesus pulled it off. And, of course, there's that whole "reluctant hero" bit perfected by Joseph Campbell.

While you are correct those aren't really stories but rather elements of stories. Just because a story is comprised of elements that have been done before doesn't necessarily make it unoriginal. If you were to reinterpret and expand on those ideas then the story might be something unique and for all intents and purposes new.

Gravekeeper, I sort of agree with you but I agree with kyupol as well. To be fair fictional accounts of historical events and people, philosophy and the like, while not that original of an idea, is pretty flexible and it can be taken a lot of different directions.
Not that I'm knocking your approach, hell I do it myself!

I don't think there's a real problem with the specific bits in stories- stuff like characters and dialogue etc, or who moves in with who and all that crap. I think the main problem with perceived unoriginality in stories is when you have all the same major plot structures as other stories:
Take the Cowboys and Aliens comic for a perfect example. It's a fine competently done comic in its own right, but it sticks mind-numbingly close to that same Hollywood action movie plot sequence.

-You'd have to read it yourself to see, but basically, you have stuff like an unlikely band of heroes slowly forming into a group to go up against overwhelming odds, they bond during a camp fire party in the middle, get the help of some turncoats from the bad guys and then the whole thing ends with big explosions and people partying etc.
-My description makes it sound more original than it is, trust me; it's not.

Now there is absolutely NO reason why you have to follow that structure. A lot of stories do, but it's just a very simple, very linear, basic way of doing the story setup- that's why it's done, not because that's a good structure, or appealing, no, just because it's something basic to start off with. Like using Arial font, Comic Sans, or Times New Roman in a document or logo, when you could mix it up a bit with Helvetica, Futura, Avant Garde, Gill Sans, Garamond, Book Antiqua, Calibri, Centaur or something else instead. (sorry, I'm a graphic designer I think in fonts.).
Not following the same tired old structure isn't that hard at all, first you just have to realise that you're doing it , and then make changes. And if you do, at least that part of your story will be a little more interesting.