People should stop accepting changes to from the source material in adaptations in books or other media, or in sequels, prequels, reboots, etc for older franchises. What this means is that, for adaptations, you will not accept even a single change from the source material and, for sequels/prequels/reboots, you will not accept anything that changes even one aspect, theme or plot point of the original - that the new material follows from the original 100% and does not change the original in any way.

Why do I say this? In the feudal period, you had a class of people called "serfs." Some people view serfs as a kind of slave, but that's not really the truth. Serfs couldn't be owned by anyone, but they were tied to the land that they tended and weren't allowed to leave, and when lords bought, sold or traded lands, the serfs on that land would come with it. Corporations have come to view fandoms of various IPs as a sort of "consumer serf." You come with the IP and are somehow obligated to consume products with its branding. This is why they feel so comfortable and even eager to make broad, sweeping changes to the IPs that they buy or get the rights to. The "fandom" will buy their garbage by default simply for having its branding on it, and now its their job to reach out to the "wider audience." There needs to be some kind of conscious effort to tell them that they are wrong. That its us or the "wider audience," but not both. That you refuse to consume any adaptation, sequel, prequel, reboot or whatever else that has had even a single change made to it.

>>212919526 (OP)
(PS)
Granted, with adaptations some changes are necessary for the transition to a new medium, but these are limited to
1) Time saving - cutting and condensing plot and characters from longer form content like a novel to shorter form content like a movie
2) Budget concerns - some things might need to be altered to fit a limited budget (you only get this excuse if your budget is, in fact, small)
3) Slight alterations to the order of events or narrative beats to fit the new medium.
4) Changes made to enhance visual storytelling (ie - the good guys have bright costumes and the bad guys have dark costumes)
But that's it. The change from book to movie or TV show doesn't entail the addition in a love triangle, completely changing characters or whatever the fuck.

>>212919526 (OP)
Few people are going to read this amount of text unless it's more entertaining than this.

>There needs to be some kind of conscious effort to tell them that they are wrong. That its us or the "wider audience," but not both.
The "original hardcore fandom" has very little power. The point is, if you're a hardcore fan, you're probably going to watch the thing whatever, even if you then bitch about how bad it was. So they know they've got you already. So they try to appeal to other people as well.

In Donald Trump's first presidential term, that jewish guy who married his daughter said, look, you don't need to do anything for white men. They've got nowhere else to go. Who else are they going to vote for? So just do everything you can to try to attract other groups. You can screw the white men over as much as you like. Even though, yes, they are your base.

Same thinking.

>>212920268
But this is what I'm getting at.

Simply do not. You do not need to consume garbage because it has your favorite branding on it. If they make a change, any change, they are not making a product for you and you should simply not consume it like anything else you do not consume. For instance, I do not consume girls' YA romance novels, and I do not care when they come out. If a girls' YA romance novel came out that had "Star Wars" or whatever slapped on it, I will not go out to buy that novel simply because I like the original movies and it has the same branding. I will simply not buy it as I do not buy any girls' YA novel. This is the attitude we should carry to anything that makes any change to any work or franchise you happen to be a fan of. If they make a change, you are not the audience and you ignore it like you would ignore anything else that you are not the audience for. If everyone takes on this attitude, we win by default. We win by doing nothing.

>>212920379

>Simply do not.
It might be simple, but it will never happen.

>You do not need to consume garbage because it has your favorite branding on it.
No, but people will.

>If they make a change, any change, they are not making a product for you and you should simply not consume it like anything else you do not consume.
People who like X will still go and see a film called X even if they know it will be only (say) 40% X.

>This is the attitude we should carry to anything that makes any change to any work or franchise you happen to be a fan of.
We SHOULD just put ropes round a lot of necks and kick the chairs away from under a lot of feet. Let's not get into what we SHOULD do.

>If they make a change, you are not the audience and you ignore it like you would ignore anything else that you are not the audience for.
See the "40%" point.

>If everyone takes on this attitude, we win by default. We win by doing nothing.
If elephants cost $5 and could be shrunk to the size of a matchbox for easy storage when not in use, I would have two.

You will never get more than a tiny proportion of hardcore fans to do this. That's nowhere near enough to achieve anything by a passive strategy like a boycott. (Hollywood would probably not care even if a LARGE proportion of hardcore fans did it, because there are far more casual fans than hardcore fans.)

>>212920614
Well, obviously its not *just* passive doing nothing. It's actively telling other people to have a little self-respect and actively shaming and ridiculing the garbage-eaters who continue to devour whatever rancid shit has the branding on it.

But, if after a good deal of agitating among people that you hit some kind of critical mass, stopping this bullshit would be as easy as just doing nothing.

>>212920780
>Well, obviously its not *just* passive doing nothing.
Obviously "trying to encourage other people to join your boycott" is not itself passive. It's the boycott itself which is passive, as I said.

>>212920916
I don't think it's even a boycott. A boycott is refusing to buy something you would otherwise buy until some kind of demand is met. This isn't that. This is a simple recognition that these sorts of products are firmly in the "things I don't buy" camp that you were only considering buy because of the branding. I don't watch shitty political dramas and I'm not going to start because it takes place in fantasy land and claims to be part of Lord of the Rings.

It's not a boycott. It's a recognition that it isn't a product you want to buy. It's trying to get people to realize that they shouldn't buy a thing simply because it has a brand name they associate with arbitrarily stamped on it.