Oh man, good post and good points made.Your details are somewhat incorrect.
A Wrinkle In Time is an award-winning novel written at a time when people didn't "aim at GIRLS". I've read it. Hell, I still have the copy I bought when I was a kid.
The lead character in the book is NOT described as bi-racial. That choice was almost certainly DuVernay's.
The character played by Oprah is pretty much unrecognizable as the book character, as are her "sisters". Wanna guess whose choice was that?
You seem to think that the creative decisions in Wrinkle that didn't work are somehow not the director's fault. But then again, this entire discussion seems to not understand the influence a director has on a film. "It's the character/franchise! That's what makes money!"
If that was the case, all those Batman films would have made as much money as TDK. All the Spider-Man movies would have done as well, too. After all the franchise is more important than the director?
Right?
Pardon my French, but bullsiht.
History is FULL of hit franchises, from James Bond to Star Wars, where a bad script/director leads to a bad movie. (Does the name Solo ring a bell?). The reason the MCU has done so well is not because of any "franchise", but because Marvel Studios in general (and, I suspect, Feige in particular) have been smart about picking the right directors for the right films.
Coogler (and his writing partner, Joe Robert Cole) took a character barely known to the public at large and created a great script, which he turned into a great movie. Implying that there are a number of other directors, black or otherwise, who could have done as good of a job begs a simple question:
"Where are their 3 billion dollar movies?"
Now, it's entirely possible that you may be right. Maybe someone else could have done as well or better (but I still think DuVernay is over-rated).
All I ask is that you give Coogler some credit for his achievement.
Respect the man's skills!