Trencher

You can do interesting stuff with Superman.  You don't have to change the character.  Just because he always does the right thing, doesn't mean he has to be boring.  Most TV dads will always do the right thing, but that doesn't mean that they're all Danny Tanner.  I'm reminded of an episode from I think the first season of Lois and Clark (which was as far as I watched).  They're investigating some sort of mob-connected nightclub or something, and they each go undercover.  Clark gets a job as like a bouncer or bodyguard or something (Dean Cain was a big dude), while Lois tries to sneak in some other way.  Lois gets found out, and the mob guys tell Clark (whose cover is still intact) to get rid of her. So he carries her kicking and screaming out of the club into an alleyway, and is going to put her in a trash dumpster.  He uses his x-ray vision to scan the dumpsters.  One is empty.  The other is full of rotting garbage.  He glances towards the camera and gives just a little smirk.  He picks the one that is full of garbage and throws her in.
 
Just because he's lawful good, doesn't mean he's completely boring.  He enjoys practical jokes from time to time.
 
With Superman, you have to make sure you make Clark Kent an interesting character.  The hook there is that both Clark and the audience are in on a really fun secret, and nobody else is.

Ah, now I remember why I stopped posting here for a few years... jerks.
 
Was there really a reason for that kind of insult? Seriously? We're expressing opinions on entertainment.

Nor is there a shell of 6.5*55.

I don't see .338 Lapua Magnum in there, but it's still awesome.

Dangerous thinking, that. With the state of the USA today, if Trump won the Big Chair, he could point at all sorts of economic successes at least, 5 years down the line, just from the inertia built up to get the economy performing at its current state. Personally, I'm starting to wonder whether that's Trump's plan: get in, do nothing, ...?, Profit!
 
I still think that the "disgust" reflex is strong enough on average to overcome the general monkey-brain manipulation tricks Ol' rug-head is pulling. At least I hope so.

Well, fine, I'll just refer to him as "loathsome scumbag Roger Ailes".

I'd be more inclined to criticize Pence for extreme bigotry, a total disregard for science, and a tendency to use campaign funds for personal use (like his mortgage). I don't mind Chili's, but you have to watch out because a lot of their food is really unhealthy.

No it isn't because he wasn't.  Clinton was accused of sloppy storage of classified information, and was given a pass because it could not be established that she understood computer security well enough to grasp the security vulnerability of what she was doing.  General Petraeus on the other hand took actual physical top secret documents home and deliberately showed them to his uncleared girlfriend.  The two things are not the same.  Clinton risked a security leak.  Petraeus committed one.  Note, that that former attorney general Alberto Gonzales (not in the Obama administration) deliberately took top secret documents home and kept them there, before taking them back and putting them in a Justice Department safe that uncleared persons had access to. He was also not charged with anything even though the NSA were not happy campers.

Trump is still rich because he risks other people's money in his ventures, not his own.

Polls have been showing Trump v. Clinton to be a much tighter contest than Trump v. Sanders for months. In the former she's just barely eked out wins and has steadily lost ground. This is within the margin of error. 
In the latter, Sanders has typically been ahead by the margin of error or slightly greater. In some cases, much greater. The simple fact is, no matter how hard her supporters try to spin it, people dislike her almost as much as they dislike Trump.
 
If she doesn't have a big moment, or hits the wrong tone once to often on the capaign trail, she very well could lose... and badly. Clinton is an unlikable plodder whose policies are unimaginative and represent a status quo Americans increasingly see as corrupt and elitist and stacked against the common man.
 
And, trotting Bill out on economics, irrespective of his competence, is a hack move that will be read as weakness. In a campaign between a plodding hack and a windmilling baffoon, the buffoon may just land a knockout punch.
 
If past performance is an indicator, she is, contrary to media fantasy, in a much more tenuous and vulnerable position than the dems want to admit. In this case, the less electable candidate is (clinton) is likely to win the nomination.
 
And, me? If she doesn't offer Sanders camp substantive policy concessions and clean up her act, I'm going to sit back, eat popcorn, slurp my soda, and cheer while she gets beat down and bloodied.
 
I can survive four years of Trump if it means the DNC pulls it's head out of its collective backside and realizes they lost touch with key elements of their base. They need to get with the times and with the people. So does Hillary.
 
The people shouting for unity really mean surrender. I'd rather go down fighting for my principles in this case. I want her to lose. Badly. It's the best way to teach the DNC what they need to know to elect a real populist firebrand.

This election cycle has me questioning my faith in my countrymen.  
 
I thought Romney was such a lousy candidate that for the second time in my life, I voted for a Non Republican for President.  The first time got me Clinton.    Despite the rantings of the Right wing, Obama has not been all that bad, at least he has not managed to get a new gun ban passed...
 
Every election I think "They have to come up with better candidates next time!"  But at least on the Republican side, they seem to get worse...   
 
I personally distrust Hillary.   I do not trust her as far as I could throw her.   But I do not trust Trump as far as I could throw the Entire Republican field from the early part of this campaign.  
 
I weep for the future.   

Yes. As a Bernie Supporter I'm very disappointed at the outcome. I've held out hope, but I think we maybe officially in "It would take a miracle" territory. I'm still for him staying in, if it means that win or lose his presence forces Clinton to commit to curbing corporate excess and the like: Whether she'll actually hold to those commitments if she becomes president I don't know, but it will be pressure

That reminds me, it's time to watch the original Rollerball again.

Early reviews says it is both the best Peter Parker, and best Spider-Man. So it seems likely that you get your wish.

And, if Ant-Man can get inside Tony's suit, well... Ants in your pants.

Please, please can we finally have a FUNNY, 'spitting-one-liners-like-an-uzi' Spider-Man?!?!?  PLEASE?

I am a bit worried about Captain America Civil war.  A couple of points that are not in the movies favour.
 
1: Civil war the comic series was bad. 
 
2: Robert Downey Jr. is very popular and famous and the Iron Man franchise is bigger than the Captain America franchise this probably will lead to Iron Man being much more level headed and sympathetic in the movie version. Not that that is a bad thing but usually how Hollywood does it is that they make one guy look good by making his opposition look worse then him. Like Batman vs Superman they made Superman into a doofus just to make Batman look cooler. (The Frank Miller method if you will)
 
3 From the trailer all the heavy hitters are on Iron man's side. Iron man got two super scientists two flying super tanks, one android as powerful as Superman and two super level fighters. Not only does he also have Shield and the US government on his side but the super science magical kingdom of Wakanda as well. Captain America on the other hand has two super level fighters one with a shield one with an cyberarm, a top tier fighter with wings and a guy with trick arrows. When your most powerful guy on your super team is Hawkeye you got trouble. Thor and Hulk could join in on Captain Americas side and they  still would be in trouble. 
 
4: The severe difference in power probably would "force" Captains team to use dishonourable tactics, hit and run and so on. I seen so many movies and TV series where the heroes are called terrorists now that I have lost count and I worry that either the movie will try to justify such tactics or use it as an excuse to make Captain America "Darker and grittier". Dont you believe me? How about the change from Iron man 1 to Iron man 3? In the first Ten Rings were an real terror organisation but in the third... Well not spoilers but it was what it was. We all know where the sympathies of Hollywood lies when it comes to terrorists vs the western world and I worry they will try to go really political and try to convince us that their pot fueled crime groupie views are legitimate.

The Civil War comic series sucked.  I agree with you there.  It's one of the things that made me stop reading comics.
 
I don't think the rest of your worries are well founded though.    It sounds like your own politics are kind of leaking in as well.  All the critics are saying this is one of the best Marvel movies yet.  The big thing that Captain America has is that he's persuasive.  He's a natural leader and he doesn't give up.  Just look at the trailer where Cap is fighting Iron Man, is clearly outmatched, and says "I could do this all day."  This is a reference to his first movie, before he had powers, when he was fighting a bully.  Putting Iron Man in the "bully" position doesn't seem to me like they're painting Cap as a terrorist.  Kevin Feige even talked about how Iron Man was clearly a bad guy in the comics, and in this one they hope to make it clear that both sides are good guys.
 
Cap also has the Scarlet Witch, who is a walking talking VPP.  So the power level isn't quite as uneven as you portray it.

I think you'll find your fears unfounded. Check some early reviews. There are a few up on Rotten Tomatoes.
 
You should also look more closely at the lineup. (For example, you're leaving out Ant Man and Scarlet Witch, and Thor and Hulk will most definitely not be making an appearance.)

By that logic, McDonalds is churning out five-star grub.

Agreed. She's still too "sterotypical modern day thin model" in appearance.

I like comic book movies. BUT, DC is not alone in issues. All of the major Marvel sequels have been lame and riding on the coattails of the originals. And the X-Men based movies have mostly not stood up to repeated viewing for me at all, some I didn't even find interesting the first time, although there are a couple I haven't seen yet that have been recommended by friends, so I'm looking forward to seeing them.
 
This isn't even bringing up Hulk. Outside of The Avengers, there is strong argument to call each attempt a failure. There is no question that the Lou Ferrigno Hulk was more beloved than any other stand alone attempt at the character.
 
The problem for Superman is that fans do not want changes, and non-fans do not want to go see the same thing again. Superman is singular in being THE superhero, very difficult to pull that off at all.
 
Batman has yielded some of the most successful comic book movies for the longest, though there are plenty of dogs, and plenty of mediocre movies from that.

Teh Bunneh has pointed out in a few conversations we've had over the respective DC/Marvel movies...
 
DC is running headlong from their past and their own stories over the years.
 
Marvel is mining it for the gold and trying to bring it to the masses as best they can.
 
We can easily see which one is succeeding here...

Any of them if you don't like the film.

Batman and Robin