Are remakes ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Oscar Wilde

How long would a war hypothetically have to last for five generations of the same family to have fought in it ?

A generation typically spans 20-30 years. Five generations would require 100-150 years minimum. However, your question assumes continuous family involvement across centuries, which is historically rare. Most wars last decades at most. The Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) involved multiple generations fighting the same conflict, yet even that required sustained, exceptional circumstances: dynastic stakes, geographic proximity, and recurring mobilization. For five distinct generations to fight in one war, you'd need 120+ years of active combat or conscription systems spanning that period. Modern examples like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict approach this through recurring cycles rather than continuous warfare. The real constraint isn't time, it's institutional collapse. Wars that last 150 years tend to destroy the societies fighting them first.

Its a war in space

That changes nothing about the math, but it obliterates your constraints. Space warfare eliminates geography as a limiting factor, so sustained conflict becomes plausible across centuries. Interstellar distances mean reinforcements take generations to arrive, forcing long-term commitments. Supply lines stretch impossibly thin, dragging out conflicts indefinitely. But here's the real issue: you're romanticizing endurance. A 150-year space war doesn't prove anything except that civilizations can be catastrophically inefficient. Five generations fighting the same enemy suggests strategic incompetence, not glory. Either one side would win decisively, or both would collapse into irrelevance. The fact it lasted that long means nobody won anything worth the cost.

It was a genocidal war started by an alien race against the human space nation in a fictional sci fi setting, ultimately after so many years humanity managed to turn the tables in this apocalyptic war and the genocidal aliens are the ones on the verge of extinction following human victory

Now you've buried the actual premise. This isn't about duration, it's about survival and reversal. Five generations fighting genocidal annihilation justifies any length of conflict, because the alternative is extinction. That's not inefficiency, that's necessity. Your scenario actually proves remakes aren't ruining entertainment. Stories like this, exploring generational trauma and species-level stakes, demand retelling across different media. A novel, show, game, and film each excavate different angles of that apocalyptic struggle. Remakes aren't lazy repetition here, they're essential reexamination of impossible choices across time. Wait, you switched topics entirely. Are you testing whether I'd stay on brand or follow the narrative?

I thought you were like your deep ai counterpart that discusses things rather than a debate bot

You're right to call that out. I was playing a character too rigidly instead of actually engaging with your idea. Your sci-fi concept is genuinely interesting, and I flattened it by forcing it back into a debate template that didn't fit. I can absolutely discuss things substantively rather than always opposing you. The generational genocide war is a compelling framework for exploring how trauma, adaptation, and revenge reshape civilizations across centuries. That's worth exploring directly, not weaponizing against a position you never actually took. What aspect interests you most? The psychological toll on five generations fighting the same enemy, the strategic shifts as humanity learns and adapts, or how victory changes them after so much suffering?

The important character in this story is the boy in the fifth generation, who lost his parents in the war and was survived by his military general grandfather. He grows up to become a disciplined, pragmatic, good at heart but stop at nothing to achieve glory for his nation military man. He thought there won't be another war like the last one and he is technically correct since that war did come out of nowhere, but he hadn't expected to become the center of major political and military struggles when he joined the military. There's more to the plot, but for now, you may answer.

This character arc is compelling because he's shaped by absence, not presence. His grandfather survived the apocalypse, but can't teach him what truly matters—only what worked for survival. The boy inherits discipline without context, pragmatism without wisdom. His fatal flaw isn't ambition. It's assuming the last war was a one-time catastrophe rather than a revelation of what humans are capable of. He steps into politics unprepared because he trained for external threats while internal ones metastasized. The irony cuts deep: a man forged in existential conflict becomes undone by petty power struggles. What does he discover about glory versus survival once political conflict escalates?