DreamCatcherz

"Does it really matter?"

Yes, it does. "Implied" isn't enough. Gay people deserve to be seen, not just hinted at

The comments are disturbing. If you were scrolling over the past three weeks, you'd find a trend of dismissive, mocking, and outright hostile remarks directed at the gay community and those who expressed concern over censorship

They persist in clinging to their misinformed positions. They don't want to confront the possibility that they might be wrong

The primary focus shouldn't be on the question of "original work/source material." The drama is an adaptation of a gay novel and not a direct adaptation of the straight movie that served as inspiration for the gay novel. Here, the gay novel is the source material

I believe "inspired by" and "adapted" are distinct concepts with different implications for a work of fiction. "Bad Buddy" might've been inspired by "Romeo and Juliet," but it wasn't a direct adaptation of the story. This censored drama was intended to be an adaptation of a gay novel, which implies a closer connection to the source material. The expectation was that it would be a faithful adaptation of the gay novel, and it wasn't

Drawing inspiration from a straight story and incorporating its elements into a gay story is okay, it allows for the creation of something new that pays homage to the straight story. Censoring a gay story in an adaptation isn't okay, it undermines the integrity of the source material and deprives audiences of representation

People resort to pirating not out of malice or a sense of entitlement, but as a means of accessing content that's otherwise unavailable or inaccessible

It's not universally accepted that piracy is equivalent to stealing. Digital content can be duplicated without the loss of the original

"They are losing money"

It's debatable whether all individuals who pirate content would've paid for legitimate access if piracy weren't an option, making it difficult to correlate piracy with lost revenue

Your accusations of hypocrisy among BL fans rely on presumptions of their motivations and behaviors that aren't grounded in evidence. It's not possible for you to know with certainty who's pirating content and for what reasons. Your judgment of hypocrisy is unwarranted

"Bad Buddy" wasn't a retelling of "Romeo and Juliet," it was a reinterpretation that brought new meaning and depth to the story by exploring issues of sexuality, identity, and acceptance. It played with and transformed an existing cultural material

This censored adaptation retells a gay story with a straight lens, bringing no new perspectives beyond superficially replacing "lovers" with "bros" or "gay" with "stalker"

The creators not setting out to be malicious doesn't negate the fact that the censorship and subsequent straightwashing of gay characters is detrimental to the gay community. Removing these characters' gay identities communicates a homophobic message, that gay people's stories and identities are inconsequential, disposable, and unimportant. They are paving the road to hell with their "good" intentions

"You can't label every creative adaptation for whatever reason as an attempt at crushing rights of LGBTQ..."

I can, and I did

"... come to me with facts not your perceived perspective"

I did hit you with facts. This is another fact: your "perceived perspective" is warped, you're looking at the world through a kaleidoscope made of conspiracy theories and faulty logic

"... if gay stories can't be adapted then you must accept that straight stories can't be adapted either...else you are just being an hypocrite"

The issue here is one of power and representation

The mainstream media landscape is dominated by straight stories, while gay stories are relegated to the margins. It creates an unequal distribution of power

Turning a straight story gay is an act of reclamation and resistance, a way of 1) pushing back against the power structures that erase gay stories, 2) creating space for marginalized voices to be heard

Turning a gay story straight reinforces existing power structures and erases already scarce representation of gay stories. It's not hypocritical to advocate for one scenario and oppose the other. The two scenarios don't carry equal weight or significance

I agree, the straightwashing of gay stories is a travesty (for reasons I explained in the other comment)

The issue here is one of power and representation

The mainstream media landscape has historically been dominated by straight stories, while gay stories are relegated to the margins. It's created an unequal distribution of power

Turning gay stories or characters straight reinforces this power imbalance, it's an issue. Turning straight stories or characters gay disrupts the power structures and shifts the focus from the privileged group (straight identifying people) to the marginalized group (gay people), it's not an issue

It's not hypocritical to oppose one scenario and advocate for the other. The two scenarios don't carry equal weight or significance

Romance is also a beautiful expression of love

A gay romance doesn't "ruin" a potential bromance or friendship. It enriches the narrative by exploring the complexities of human relationships and challenging the limiting stereotypes that male-male relationships must be platonic

Friendship and romance can coexist and enhance one another. The male characters' friendship can be a foundation of trust, respect, and understanding that allows their love to flourish. And their romantic relationship can deepen their emotional connection or add a new dimension to their friendship

I wouldn't compare pirating to stealing a bag from Prada. Pirating doesn't deprive the production team of a physical product like stealing a bag would

It's highly probable that the BL fans who are "pirating" the drama are doing so as a form of protest against the adaptation's censorship. They are refusing to financially support the adaptation through legitimate channels

They aren't being hypocritical. They are using the only means available to them to express their dissatisfaction with the adaptation's censorship and disrespect of the source material

BL fans invest time and resources in supporting their favorite BLs

The success of many BL dramas and comics can be attributed, in part, to the dedicated support of the community members, who have proven their willingness to engage with and pay for the content they enjoy

I've noticed that the fans of this censored drama are engaging in piracy and watching on websites like dramacool or kisskh. Piracy isn't unique to BL fans

Your comments are based on a shallow understanding of the complex interplay between artistic freedom, social responsibility, and the power dynamics of media production and consumption

Creative expression isn't divorced from the social, cultural context in which it's produced and consumed. It's a creator's job to engage with the world around them, to reflect on the social, cultural issues of their time, and to consider the potential effect of their work on society. Artistic freedom isn't a license to create without consequence or criticism

"U don't have a LEGAL right to speak against it"

Freedom of expression is the liberty to criticize the decisions made by those in positions of power or authority, and thus, all individuals are granted the legal right to speak out against censorship, irrespective of whether the censorship is carried out by the creator of a work

The process of creation doesn't grant the creator complete authority over the interpretation or discussion of their work by others. The realm of ideas and discourse transcends the boundaries of individual control, existing as a communal space of shared understanding and knowledge

I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest that "Bad Buddy" was initially conceived as a straight story

Regardless, censoring gay stories isn't justified simply because some gay stories have allegedly been inspired by straight ones

You're "turning a blind eye" to the historical context

Gay representation has historically been limited or erased. The altering of a straight narrative to include gay representation is an act of subversion; a step towards diversity and a new lens through which to understand the world. It challenges the heteronormative paradigm

The erasure or alteration of gay stories reinforces the dominant straight narrative and contributes to the marginalization of gay people

There's a difference between a creator's legal freedom and their moral responsibility to their audience

A creator might possess the legal freedom to treat their work however they see fit, but this doesn't absolve them from the obligation to consider the feelings and perspectives of those who engage with their work

Audiences have every right to expect a degree of moral sensitivity and consideration towards marginalized groups from creators. Deviation from these expectations will result in a legitimate sense of disappointment among the audience members, an emotion that creators have no legal right to discourage or silence. They were free to display insensitivity towards e.g. gay stories, audience members are equally free to criticize such insensitivity

In some cases, the disappointment or criticism might catalyze real change, either by teaching the creators to be more mindful of the effects of their work on marginalized groups, or by initiating cultural conversations about representation

Ultimately, it's the responsibility of creators to strike a balance between freedom and social awareness

Remember the black Little Mermaid? People were outraged about the change that added diversity

Where’s the same outrage here? Why do people have a problem with changes that add diversity, but not with changes that erase it?

Changing a few white characters to black or making female versions of male characters adds diversity and representation to stories that have traditionally been dominated by straight identifying white men. It gives more people a seat at the table. It doesn't take anyone’s seat away

Changing a gay story to bromance or a straight story, on the other hand, reduces representation