The Four Color Media Monitor

The SJWs want to destroy Marvel's successful movie franchise, just as they have ruined Star Wars. Just as they have ruined the Boy Scouts. Just as they ruin everything they touch.

At least Feige finally admits why the mad, if not haphazard, rush to introduce Captain Marvel in the films: to set up Miss Marvel. They'd rather have Miss Marvel, anyway, so why not skip the middleman? The Marvel films already went there with a Idris Elba!Norse God and a mulatto Valkyrie, so what's tradition at this point?

It's one thing to put out a niche comic that doesn't sell (e.g., Ms. Marvel and the recently resurrected Iceman), it's another to put out a comic film that is also meant to appeal to casual fans and normies. How many of those fans really want to see Kamala Khan? Good luck with that, Marvel Studios.

At least we had a mostly good 10 years of MCU films avoiding just enough of this. The full SJW convergence is long overdue.

Kamala's fan-girl hero worship of Carol Danvers, and their later friendship, was an important element of her character in the comic book. Keeping that in the films means that they are hewing close to the comic book storyline and showing respect for the character.

Ms Marvel has made the New York Times best seller lists with the first three volumes of her trade paperbacks; that suggests the casual fans like her more than the pull list people.

This is "equality in outcome" and not equality of opportunity. This effectively means that Marvel et al will be putting under qualified women into slots they haven't earned and who will invariably fail - or be subsidized by the company to spread SJWism through their propagandistic comics. It also means that fewer actually talented people - actually talented WOMEN included in that - will be getting their work out there because the "diversity" slots will have been filled by the blue hairs.

"Ms Marvel has made the New York Times best seller lists with the first three volumes of her trade paperbacks; that suggests the casual fans like her more than the pull list people."

The New York Times Best Sellers List doesn't mean much if isn't based purely on sales. A lot of what makes it onto that list is based on what critics like.

If comics companies are making so much money at these Scholastic book fairs, then why haven't they released many more original graphic novels in that market?
There's something fishy about Ms Marvel being sold at comic shops at a loss before they break even at Scholastic book fairs. Marvel and a large number of comic book publishers want to turn their properties into "lifestyle brands", as Sana Amanat put it. Does that mean that they will make a product at a loss, if it promotes a certain ideology, I mean, "lifestyle" their parent companies are also pushing?

The majority of offerings for Scholastic graphic novels are aimed primarily at females.
Diversity almost always refers,these days, to women, women of color, and lgbt groups.
The girls first and girls only bias in children's publishing is so pervasive that insiders often quip that "boys don't read" while at the same time are frustrated that boys don't want to read books about girls and lgbt people.
"Lifestyle brand"= propaganda

"This also means that fewer actually talented people - actually talented WOMEN included in that - will be getting their work out there because the "diversity" slots will have been filled by the blue "
Given that so many people in the social circle of people who work in the media, arts, or publishing are far-left liberals, more diversity means it will be easier for them to hire their unemployable friends and family members.

A lack of open submissions and cutthroat competition means more nepotism.

It's easy for everyone to look over your connections and your "white privilege" when you can tout how non-white, female-I mean. feminist or gay you are, as if those things make you less privileged if you come from an affluent background.

Jk Rowling was published under initials rather than using her first name because publishers thought that boys would not want to read a book written by a girl. That kind of perception biases publishing; it is not always a girls-first thing.

"Jk Rowling was published under initials rather than using her first name because publishers thought that boys would not want to read a book written by a girl. "

This was meaningless since Harry Potter was not aimed at boys. The publisher thought the series could appeal to everyone and did not want the author's name to give readers the impression that the first HP book was "Girls' Fantasy" or "Boys' Fantasy". Nice try, though, making it look like the publishers were trying to sell a woman's writing to an all-male audience.

The Harry Potter publishers worked on the theory that girls would read books by men or wmoemn, but boys would not read a book by a girl. So they de-gendered her name to appeal to boys.

If nothing else, it shows that there is nto really a girls first and girls only bias in publishing.