So, gotta spell it out, coloring-book-like.
You post your "adaptation complains" in the thread dedicated to "oh noes the woke they are ruining everythiiing" and then go "no no I didn't mean it politically, just mentioning adaptation discrepancies".
Yes, God forbid I don't mention the title of the thread in my posts.
Also, you're the one inserting politics, not me.
All that you post here is directly, implicitely, part of the "look progressive values are imposed everywhere and break all that is good" narrative, because it's what whining about "wokeism" is all about.
Projection, thy name is Absent.
The thread itself is a political framing. The thread itself defines all posts here as "wokeism"-related. If you just wanted to discuss the elasticity of adaptations, you'd have put that in the general tv/movie news.
But it wasn't posted in the TV thread was it, genius?
It's here only because you see it as a politically-motivated distorsion to denounce.
Dwarf posted it numb nuts, not me.
And this thing would not have grown in your echo chambers if the changes were deemed apolitical - like the BBC jekyll, or disney's treasure planet.
My echo chambers? Look at yourself. You're in an echo chamber so narrow that you can't conceptualize anything outside your political projections.
Now as to your other points:
-I never said any of the changes were political. Again, quote where I mentioned they were.
-I can't comment on BBC's Jekyll, but Treasure Planet was, by any reasonable measure, a faithful adaptation, and far more subjectively, a good movie. The only real difference to Treasure Planet is the space setting, everything else, from character, to plot, to themes, is rendered intact.
Robin Hood has no definitive source material. He is just a legendary outlaw from folklore who might or might not actually have existed. Which various tales ballads and stories that still are existing usually having been written down centuries later.
Yes, he was supposed to be a good archer. But also a good swordsman, which most new adaptations ignore. And the bow is in many stories not a central or iconic element.
Honestly, Robin Hood is worse than King Arthur and his knights when it comes to canon lore and judging faithfulness.
I've never seen any version of Robin Hood without a bow. As I've already stated, you could have RH without the bow and the overall story would remain the same. The faithfulness of an RH adaptation is not dependent on the bow, it's weird to have it without it. Even when bows are an anachronism in RH-inspired works (again, Green Arrow and Muchmore), the bow is usually retained and justified within the text.
As for King Arthur, yes, you're absolutely right, but there's generally a few constants in King Arthur, and if we're talking about weapons, one of them would be Excalibur. Can you have an adaptation of King Arthur without that element? Yes. Would it be strange? Also yes. Regardless of your version, there's generally a few constants in King Arthur, and if those constants are gone, it's quite legitimate to ask why, and whether it qualifies as an adaptation. It doesn't even necessarily make the work bad. If I write "King Arthur" and it's a story of Artie who travels to Mars and establishes humanity's first colony, it might be a terrific sci-fi story, but you'd be left asking how I'd actually "adapted" KA as well.
Problem with the video in question is that it looks lacklustre on its own, and more a case of slapping the RH name on it than actually adapting RH.