All characters are connected in the great circle of life. The Lion King and Hamlet, Alice in Wonderland and The Wizard Of Oz. Alice and Dorothy both came out of the same era, emerging from the same viewpoint, and were based off of girls that Carroll and Baum both knew, so that archetype of female characters exploroing the world they live in that seems to be "out of this world" was copied, processed , and published in a multitude of movies and books that continue into today.
So the question is, can these characters, that all seem new and inviting and glowing with hope, be considered original? Yes, because all of these common characters were seemingly established as archetypes. There will always be the misunderstood teenager, strict mother, and annoying little brother. The creativity in a story comes from the way a story is written, not in the way that the characters were formed. James Cameron's Avatar is a Pocahontas carbon copy, but that's okay because of its insanely hypercritical movements, creatures, and even the world, because the movie literally is meant for you to marvel at the beautiful art and effort put into creating an entire world out of mutated horses and cat people, built into a computer on another planet. Pocahontas is just another whitewashed Disney film, but nevertheless, the "colors of the wind" are painted into the heads of kids everywhere, who now view American history in a colored palette of racist native history.
So what does that mean for us intellectuals that can see where the story is going in the first five minutes of the book or movie? Keep reading. It might change. Just because the powerful feminist Mockingjay seems to radiate an era of confidence and positivism, she will not win everything. The love triangle is deeper than it seems. Keep reading, and do not fall into the "rabbit hole" of assuming you know better.
