I agree, the main issue is most people can't look past their own bias. As if not liking a change to a 50 year long story instantly makes you the problem. If John Cena were to be cast as the new Jean Grey people would have the same issue.

Having an opinion that's not the same as everyone else's is allowed, instantly being called fragile when a character is dramatically altered is cruel since it allows for no discussion.

If they cast Henry Cavill as the new Barbie, you can be certain that the fragile people will truly appear. Even if he's just as pretty.

Disrespected? They slaughtered all the men and only the women stood a chance, she became the embodiment of a new universe in What If, they disregarded all sense of story to demonstrate that Steve Roger's could have simply been replaced by Peggy Carter.

You know who should be pissed, Paul Rudd, for Scott Lang being the butt of every single insult in the Ant Man series, sorry the Wasp movie series.

Why is it all that's needed is for someone to claim some form of abuse or disrespect and boom their character becomes the glue holding it all together.

It's never enough, Bill Hicks the famous comedian said it decades ago and it still stands.

Are writers not required to research their stories first? This is an ongoing issue with Screenrant, constant errors in facts, the lack of research, and a complete disregard for grammar and spelling.