>>87112170I think for me it boils down to feeling like the actual reactions of actual readers and consumers are being treated as a DISTANT secondary concern to how these books make the company look as a brand identity.
We know that for years now they've been wanting to do a Carol Danvers movie, and that in advance of that they've changed a great deal about the character: They've given her a new name, radically transformed her body-type, erased her memories, replaced her personality and told us at every turn that we love her and she's the greatest and we all adore her, while at the same time fans keep saying that they don't.
But the important thing seems to be that they want there to be this foundation of comics which present her as the greatest ever so that when they put out the movie which presents her as such, it will come across as authentic to the source material.
Marvel has learned that lesson, at least: The movies need to feel authentic to the source material, or else the fan reaction will be hostile, which will be poison to the social media reaction. See Ghostbusters 2016 for a good example of that.
The thing is, I think that their reaction to that lesson isn't one which results in greater loyalty to the source material, but bastardizing the source material itself as a foundation upon which to build future movies.
When people reading the stories which the movies are supposed to be based upon feel as though the stories and characters they love and cherish have become nothing more than props for a different medium, it diminishes the sense of authenticity which makes the immersion this sort of entertainment relies upon.
