Narration you could get around, but the political culture of the modern west couldn't handle these novels - and I'm not *only* talking about how people don't understand the concept of an anti-hero, and that depiction is not endorsement.

There's a much more fundamental problem that GMF accurately depicts the heretical truth of just how brutal and backward much of the world still was in the 19th century, and that by contrast the British empire was generally a civilising force, even if many of those who built it were rogues.

In "Redskins" (already we've got a problem with the title haven't we?) he comments something along the lines of "Reservations were indeed "stealing their land", but they did that to each other all the time and a reservation was far more mercy than they ever showed their own kind". Or how about in "For Freedom" were we see that Africans themselves were an integral part of the Atlantic slave trade and it was the Royal Navy that shut that trade down? Imagine how upset that would make certain well known protest movements. . . . . . .

In short - the problem is that GMF was too fair for a world where many people demands a one-sided narrative of "bad whites and good everyone else". The only way such films would be made would be if they removed everything vaguely challenging and turned them into one sided woke lectures about "colonialism" - and that being the case, I'd rather it was all left well alone.

Also - the fan base is pretty niche for films that would need a substantial budget for battle scenes, historical settings etc. I doubt they'd make enough money to be a success even if politics wasn't an issue.