And yet it still doesn't seem a spurious disctinction to me regardless. Star Trek was sold as a western in space, its characters based on existing ideas, but it was an original take. Star Trek 2009 is a hyperactive interpretation of those characters.
Yes, both distinct approaches exist
. The spurious distinction is claiming that one is right and the other is wrong. Retelling stories has always, always been part of human creativity and it always will be. In the grand sweep of history, going back to the first hunter-gatherers who told tales around the campfire, the concept that a story needs to have original character names and events in it in order to be valid is merely a recent fad. It's a notion mere centuries old, a flash in the pan. It's unreasonable to think that there will ever be a time when humans stop retelling stories that have been told before.
No, it isn't a spurious distinction at all from the point of view of the "genii", of generative creative power. Works that have that spark of originality have tapped into it, ones that ride on their coat-tails can be entertaining, but simply don't have "it".
That is true, but it is falsely superficial to think that the only measure of originality is whether the title and the names of the characters and the specifics of the plot are new. Originality is in the telling. Eragon
is nominally a new story with new characters, but at its core it's a blatant rehash of Star Wars
, so it has no originality at all. Whereas Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica
reused the title, character names, and premise of Glen Larson's 1978 series, but found a wildly original way of retelling the story.
What is spurious is implying that all remakes are lacking that spark. If everything is essentially a remake, then the spark of genius is another factor altogether.
Isn't that exactly my point?