> you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't.

> you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't. If you're going to turn a historical period on its head, then going all the way would be better. Going back to something you said: > What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird. Consistency and approximating faithfulness to an original is itself an aesthetic. It does not itself make an adaptation superior, it's a stylistic choice, and no one said it's the only good one. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". All I said is in keeping with that.