“I hate the theater. Well, it’s so disappointing, isn’t it?”

These are the opening words in Bob Martin’s Tony Award-winning musical “The Drowsy Chaperone,” and unfortunately, they’re beginning to reflect my sentiments as well. You see, like the speaker of these words, I have a great passion for musical theater; in fact, nothing excites me more. But I’m worried about the lack of originality in musical theater today.

Personally, I miss the days when I could walk into a theater and meet the characters for the first time and feel the tension rise and fall as I waited in suspense to see the hero’s fate. But I’m afraid all that magical mystery is lacking in most musicals of today for one simple reason: I’ve already seen the movie.

It seems theatrical originality is being replaced by musical adaptations. While I love seeing my favorite characters from classic films break out into song, it concerns me that I can find nothing but adaptations everywhere I look. For proof of this, one only has to look at the nominees for Best Musical at the 2013 Tony Awards: “A Christmas Story,” “Bring It On,” “Kinky Boots” and “Matilda.” All are excellent shows with as much diversity as one could wish for, except for one thing that they all have in common. They were all based off movies. All of them. Not one was truly an “original musical.”

Now, perhaps all that proves is that the popular musicals are adaptations. Let us test this theory by looking at the other musicals to open on Broadway in the 2012-13 season: “Hands on a Hardbody” (based off a documentary), “Motown” (based loosely off a book, and its characters were all real people), “Chaplin” (based off a man’s life) and “Scandalous” (based off a woman’s life).

One would hope that the Musical Revivals, the re-staging of shows from past years, would offer some relief. Alas, this is not the case: “Annie” (based off a radio program), “The Mystery of Edwin Drood” (based off a Dickens novel), “Pippin” (based off a man’s life), “Cinderella” (based off a movie … which was first based off a fairy tale), “Jekyll & Hyde” (based off a book).

As the revivals indicate, writers are drawing inspiration from more than just movies. It seems practically every medium imaginable has been turned into a musical. Musicals have sprung from books, movies, operas, TV shows, comic books, historical events and more. Even when shows try to make themselves look different from their source material such as “Rent” and “West Side Story” (modern re-tellings of “La Bohème” and “Romeo and Juliet,” respectively), they still can’t be counted as completely original pieces because they took characters and plot lines from older works.

With this upsetting lack of originality, many have begun to wonder if there is anybody out there still writing original musicals. As a matter of fact, there are, but sometimes you have to search for them. Hidden amidst the sea of countless adaptations are a few genius original works created by amazingly talented writers. In fact, some of the most popular musicals of recent years – “Next to Normal,” “Urinetown,” “Book of Mormon,” “In the Heights,” etc. – were completely original ideas.

Now, I’m not saying that I hate all adaptation musicals. I don’t. In fact, many of my favorite musicals are adaptations. It’s not the number of adaptations that frustrates me, it’s the ratio. Adaptations can be fun, but when Broadway theaters are packed full of nothing but adaptations, then that should be a sign that something is very wrong. Broadway is hungry for original work, and many fans such as myself are yearning for the next great original masterpiece.

But we’re not going to get it unless writers start investing in their own ideas instead of building off someone else’s and producers start taking chances on new musicals. Granted, they’re slightly riskier because they don’t come with a guaranteed audience, but I believe the payout of trusting a new musical could be well worth the risk.

And even if a producer or a writer doesn’t make millions on a risky original musical, they will have been a part of something that was art in its truest and purest form. And I think the fellow in “The Drowsy Chaperone” will agree with me when I say that that’s why we all got into this business originally.