I think the decision on Eternals will ultimately come down to whether the cart was put before the horse. If Marvel set out to make a film that was massively diverse as a political statement - and to capitalise on the market for such a thing, it'll become obvious in a few years. This is what happened with Wonder Woman, it was sold as a piece of Feminism - when in fact it was a piece of commercialism. It was feminism packaged up in capitalism and sold to everyone very successfully. Bizarrely, the vast majority of people couldn't tell the difference.

If this is genuine inclusion (and it may be) then it'll stand the test of time. If this is marketed inclusion designed to put bums on seats then the backlash will begin pretty sharpish. Writers could've made a good faith effort to represent difference at any point before this - I can think of any number of characters who could've been deaf (Hawkeye would've been a good choice). I can think of any number of characters who could've been gay, lesbian, bisexual or any variation on a theme (Captain America, Gamora, Dr Strange, Bruce Banner). The fact that Marvel have chosen to do all their inclusion in ONE film, with characters from the Marvel B-team suggests maybe they aren't quite as committed to inclusion as they make out -Eternals may be their 'inclusion' film.... in which case, is it really inclusion?

But then I am a massive cynic and I haven't see it - I'm just very sceptical of multi-billion pound corporations seeing the light only when it appears profitable to do so. On a side note, this is a great article and very excellently written. :o)