@sunandshadow:
I feel like we've personally done this song and dance before, but you continue to conflate derivative and unoriginal. Very few works are completely original and without comparison; no popular work ever is. There is no sin in being unoriginal: a strong foundation is built on time tested ideas, concepts, characters and plots. Where the problem lies, and where you consistently miss the mark, is when an author does not take those foundations and create something
unique with those tools, instead making a derivative work. When the author does the same thing everyone else does with the same tools, and does not show craft or nuance enough to make the work their own.
Wanting to "fix" fiction is a profoundly fanficcy desire. Wanting to make an ideological point out of an existing work is the domain of bad literary professors. Postmodern literature, in the sense you're probably using it here (dense, confusing and masturbatory) both is made for a specific audience
and comes out of the same modernist impulse that got us the modern novel style. The postmodern ideas of exalting "low" art, playing with the reader/writer dynamic and playing with assumptions in a given work is kind of why we have contemporary fanfic as a thing.
@Sendicard:
As long as the material was used in a way that engendered a strong story and wasn't thrown in as "hey, this is [Thing] now love me," or "hey, this is totally not [Thing] with the serial numbers filed off," you did all I'd ask for.
@Terrabrand:
What you're saying is the idea behind the saying "Good artists copy, great artists steal." When you steal something, you make it yours. You steal from a bunch of places, throw it together and it presents as a show of personal style. Stealing from Star Wars, Space Dandy and Moll Flanders at the same time says more about the author and the work than just making a knockoff of a single listed work.