I'm not trying to save face. I called you a fakkit from the go - why would I then attempt to save face for you?
You simply lack the ability to read context clues, and reply as if conversations exist in a vacuum - thus you failing to understand that my initial post posited Wolverine's height isn't crucial for an accurate depiction of the character. It's also why you wrongly equated "successful" with "profitability" - when the argument we're having is about subjective factors and how they are presented/framed as criticisms. You need dummy disclaimers at every corner, it's why you couldn't deduce what successful meant in this context.
see - fakkitry
Wolverine's height is crucial for an accurate depiction of te character, its literally why he constantly gets in bar fights and regular folks target him.
He isn't truly physically imposing, he is a small little ball of muscle and violence, but he isn't a physically intimidating character who can disarm you or make you back down with sheer physical presence like a Scott, Beast (pre accident), Colossus, and etc.
Wolverine's physical traits aren't subjective.
The funny part is I literally gave you a counter, in that the Jack REacher films were financially successful, even though Tom Cruise's casting to play reacher was roundly panned and felt to be entirely miscast and not in line with teh character.
I can further hit this home in the fact that hobbit's size would play no role in the characters of Pip, Merry, Frodo, and Sam they could be played the same at normal height, its more plot purposes that being hobbits shape them, same with dwarves in the Hobbit and in LoTR.
All that to say in short, respect the source material and get fans money, stop ignoring it and getting rid of a portion of the audience off the rip.