Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
I neither know, nor care, the extent to which the stories were changed from their originals. What matters to me is that someone in our era with the rights to adapt the property decided these elements were worth including today.
I appreciate that's what matters to you. It's relevant if the point is whether anyone in this day and age would tell a story with queer characters.

But we are presently discussing adapting an existing story by tweaking the way it deals with sexuality. None of the shows you have referenced is an example of that.

I neither know, nor care, what the "highest priorities for most of the population" would be.
Well you may not (although its odd if you care about non-binary gender tolerance that you don't care if any others prioritise it). But whether you care about it or not, I think it is very relevant to your earlier comment suggesting that it's not improbable that some showrunners will be willing to put aside commercial concerns to create the sort of thing you want to see?

"Their own reasons" can include things like seeking critical acclaim or positive press. Those aren't wholly separate from commercial considerations of course, but you were never going to fully separate those anyway.
What makes you think that changing the way WoT deals with gender is makes it more likely to attract critical acclaim? Do you mean acclaim from fringe critics, or from mainstream?

Again, GoT is an example of a recent book adaption that won critical acclaim for relatively faithfully following the books, and then less acclaim as it departed from the book (because the later books are unwritten).

How do you define "niche?" Which of the example properties I listed do you think qualifies?
By contrast to mainstream. A mainstream production is designed to appeal to a broad cross section of the viewing public, and will seek to not offend (or where it does, offend as few people as possible). A niche production targets a particular audience, and is sometimes able to get away with more because it is directed at a narrower market.

But we don't need to look at it in terms of niches if you think those are ill-defined. Instead we can simply say that the audience of She-Ra would probably not be sufficient to make a reasonably high budget adaption of WoT successful. Instead the model should be LotR or Narnia or something like that.

Even if we assume those two degrees of success are different enough to matter, do you have some way of knowing that doing this would cause them to go from one to the other?
I'm not sure if I understand the assumption you are getting at. Are you hinting that it is an unfounded assumption on my part that Dragon Prince did not attain the same commercial success than GoT?

I also don't really understand your question - Do i know if doing what would cause what to go to what? Sorry, sometimes context gets lost, and I'm struggling with your question here.

Based on the fact that it's not 1990 anymore.
So you think there's a risk in adapting the books because it is not 1990? GoT was a very recent book adaption, and didn't change the way the story dealt with gender. Narnia was an adaption of books from the 50s and was successful despite not changing the way they dealt with gender. So, based on the evidence, I don't think there is any real risk from not tweaking WoT.



Psyren, I sense you are not so keen on engaging on these issues, and I note that a few other people have called you out in the last few pages for disengaging/not answering questions..

Is it because the conversation is going down tracks which you are not particularly interested in discussing? It seemed to me that you had brought up the discussion of whether showrunners might choose to change the books for their own reasons. But is it the case that you'd simply prefer to discuss how the story could be rewritten to reflect the narrative on gender issues that you would personally prefer with others who share that preference, without discussion of whether making the changes at all is a good idea, or realistic?