noDon't get me wrong, I'd love it if big movie studios and such would great broken up, and most IP get punted into public domain, hopefully forcing them to hire people who want to tell stories that haven't been told much in movies or tv shows.
However, outside of that, it seems impossible to ever discuss any art/content without it turning into a discussion of how new/original/novel the work is or isn't.
Like...I am fairly well versed in how we came to this. A lot of it is IP law, and another big chunk is simply the ever-growing ability for a story to survive in a specific form by a specific person for vastly longer than has ever been the case before, and be vastly more broadly distributed in that specific form than ever before, in an ever increasing buildup of stuff we can just rewatch, reread, listen to again, etc.
And so, because we are used to all art reaching toward the greatest possible state of novelty while still saying something familiar enough to resonate, it is nearly impossible to make something that is a straightforward retelling of a classic tale without receiving pretty harsh criticism, often of a type that seems to imply that the artist is a bad person for making "derivative" art. As if the works we are comparing a work to weren't literally just as derivative, just of stuff we have less direct knowledge of as the audience.
I'm not sure if there is any real purpose here, I just get frustrated by the attitude that greater novelty is inherently better and retelling classic stories is some sort of moral failure.