Hugh Neilson

I think this is the most salient point of all.
 
We can't really talk about Superman as if he were a real person, because he's not. Everything he is and does is governed and constrained by the story that is written for him. It is meaningless to ask, "What would Superman do if given no choice but to kill an adversary?" because a competent writer (i.e., one who truly understands the character and the genre) would never put Superman in that position.
 
It reminds me of Star Trek, original series, in which Kirk looks like a genius most of the time because whenever he appears to be stuck having to choose between two truly awful options, the story (i.e., the writer) always manages to drum up a third option for him that saves the day. Saavik was spot on when she observed that Kirk had never faced a no-win scenario before, and she was in effect making a rather meta statement (as was Kirk with his retort about not believing in the no-win scenario) about the original series and the writing philosophy that drove it.
 
To my mind, a story in which Superman kills an enemy according to Machiavellian ethics is not a Superman story at all, but an ill-conceived distortion of one. Similarly, a story in which Batman kills/tortures criminals, or repeatedly brawls with Bane in futile contests of raw power, is not a Batman story at all, but a confused misappropriation of the character. I think that's why these movies fail: because they refuse to adhere to the accepted axioms of storytelling established for these characters.

My understanding is that Ant-Man was planned early, but pushed back several times.  It contained a lot of MCI history, likely a key reason Whedon could not use the Wasp was that the Ant-Man backstory was set, despite the movie not being shot.
 
Black Widow has had a few series over the years, including a current book.  She's never been an A-Lister, though.
 
Practically, Hawkeye got the Ultimates version because "wisecracking Super" had been co-opted by RDJ's Iron Man.  Black Widow seems way more 616 than Ultimates to me.  The Ultimate Widow was a traitor to the team, and that role has been co-opted by Monica Chang, who probably isn't the best role for ScarJo.

The start to the Northlands campaign (basically, all characters are young members of the Viking Jarl's household, starting out eager to prove their worth). We are summoned before the Jarl, and assigned the task of watching over his three young daughters as they go out this early Spring day to pick wildflowers for the festival. The daughters range in age from about 9 or 10 to 16. There is an almost apologetic "I know this isn't exactly the assignment a young, eager Viking is hoping for, but there's no one to bash and pillage at the moment" aspect to the speech.
 
When we note that our four PC's consist of a young Elven druid (who's pretty OK with going out to pick wildflowers), a 17 year old warrior (who's OK with it since nothing better's out there) and two...sixteen year old twin sisters, one of whom is likely hard to distinguish from the Jarl's daughters.
 
Now, on the way out, we meet a band of hardy warriors headed back from a (failed) assignment to find a couple of criminals (clearly very nuanced foreshadowing of the foes we will face later in the scenario). One of whom chooses to be insulting, and mock the PC's with their "job of shepherding young girls". 16 YO female PC responds, loudly as they depart, "Of course [Warrior's Name] would think little of such a task. EVERYONE knows he doesn't like girls."

I once thought that if I were in charge of Marvel or DC, I'd do away with Continuity . It was my view that too-strict adherence to continuity led to storytelling failure. And it still might be true. I thought that if, instead, you let artists and writers run the character during their time on the book, and use as much (or as little) continuity from previous works as they liked, you might get better results.
 
I don't think that anymore. Seeing how badly many books have splintered--I literally have NO IDEA how many X-Men variations (individuals, teams, universes) there are anymore, for instance--I see the problem there. I find it hard to care about ANY of them. Ditto for the exploding Spidey-verse. And other comic books/characters who all resemble Hydra these days. "Cut off one head, and two more will take its place!"
 
I'm not sure there IS an answer. The anecdotes about comic book editors who recycle stories on a two-year timeline because they believe the readers will have turned over by then...were probably mostly right. Nowadays, most comic readers are long-time fans who haunt their local comic shop for their latest offerings. This is especially true given that you can't pick up a comic from the spinner rack in your local drugstore anymore, which was how I got hooked back in the 70s.
 
So you can't just recycle the stories. (Well, you CAN, but....) And too much change will unhinge the fanboys or start a shooting war between the pro-change and anti-change crowds. You just can't win.

Alan Scott is still my favorite Green Lantern.

It's relatively easy to change characters in significant ways when they aren't your company's primary cash cow. Spider-Man is rare in that he's been Marvel's most popular character and yet was allowed to evolve, however slowly, over the decades. Most of the time, publishers are terrified by the prospect of changing the successful formula of their most profitable characters, and so they remain largely unchanged over decades. This isn't a failure of creative vision, it is a product of commercial expediency.
 
It also doesn't help that we're talking about characters that have lived in their respective universes, fighting the good fight, for longer than many of us have been alive. If they don't age chronologically with the real world, then they essentially live in a state of suspended animation; a state of suspended characterization is pretty congruent with that.

I disagree with this attitude so much. "Changed" is not a synonym for "ruined," and is almost always preferable to "held completely static for decades."
 
In the specific case of Peter's marriage, I thought letting Peter grow up and change really strengthened the character, and some of the storylines around his marriage with MJ were quite well done. (Say what you will about Straczynski's run on Spidey, but he wrote the Peter-MJ dynamic really well.) And there was something genuinely comforting to know that despite everything Pete went through as a kid and everything he's still going through, he nonetheless managed to find a little bit of happiness for himself. That's not a bad story for people to hear now and then.
 
What ruined Spidey for me was when they retconned away all that progress because "fans don't want to see a married Spider-Man." So we're back to Square 1, and nobody learns from anything? No possibility for character growth? What the hell is interesting about that? Where's the drama in knowing that no matter what a character goes through, nothing is ever going to change?
 
The only alternative is the DC approach of rebooting the universe every 5 years so you have an excuse to keep everyone in the exact same place and keep retelling the same damn stories over and over again. Yawn.
 
By contrast, if Marvel had kept Carol Danvers in the same box she'd been in since the 70s, no one would care about the character today and she certainly wouldn't be getting her own movie. But by letting the character evolve (starting with 2005's House Of M, and really taking off when DeConnick took over), they not only made her a far more interesting character, but they also opened up room for new characters to come in behind her.
 
I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you personally CT - I'm addressing a much wider attitude. (You just happen to be the guy that pushed the button - sorry for that!) But I genuinely feel like this instinctive, visceral resistance to change is the biggest problem with fandom today and is the main reason we can't have nice things.

Ironically, the fact that Superman could do practically anything he wants, but chooses to do what he believes is right only because it's right, is the thing I find most compelling about the character... who I have to admit has never much interested me, in any incarnation.
 
Most people seem to have forgotten that John Byrne's relaunch of Superman in 1986 was a significant redefinition of the character from his preceding form, and was in no small measure an attempt to eliminate some of the problematic elements in earlier depictions. His nigh-omnipotent power level was drastically reduced. More effort was taken to rationalize how his powers functioned. His Clark Kent identity became a serious, competent person rather than a klutzy joke. Superman's personal memories of Krypton were eliminated, making him much more a son of Earth than of Krypton. The "Superboy" phase of his life was erased. His relationship with Lois Lane was allowed to evolve. Clark's father was a living presence in his life. The nature and history of Krypton was majorly altered. But later writers kept chipping away at these changes, taking him back closer to what he had been, which IMHO has often not been for the better.
 
I would argue that for much of his history, Superman has been much less an agent of America than Captain America has been. Supes was raised with American ideals, but Cap was deliberately created by the American government as a symbol of the country. There have been few stories showing Superman acting on behalf of the government, but Cap worked for the American military initially, and has worked for SHIELD for more than one extended period. I believe that's why he's been shown going through phases of questioning his allegiance and what he truly stands for, when he's been disillusioned by the American authorities, like his classic Nomad story line. IMO the way he's been depicted in the MCU is very much within the spirit of his comic-book character arc.

That's not exactly true, its just that he can't change in any significant way.  But that's a flaw of comics on general, not just Superman.  A comic is successful and interesting in the way it presents a character, their setting, and their cast of supporting characters.  If you change that over time, you lose the magic of what made them work.  Taking Peter Parker out of school, marrying him off, giving him a child, etc... ruined the charm of Spider-Man.  But you keep putting out issue after issue for decades, and it can become stale.
 
The flaw is an ongoing series that must come out every month rather than telling story arcs of the character.  Its the American TV vs British TV comparison: American shows keep going until they suck so bad they are canceled (or just keep going anyway like the SImpsons), and British shows tell a story, and stop.  When they have a new story, they put out a new series.

Continuity should be a bonus for viewers/readers, not a requirement to understand what is happening.

I agree - they snuck in a few of the tropes, which (since it was a success) they can now get away with. Then they were able to add a few more tropes and downplay a few more of the traditional Sci Fi tropes. But I didn't find IM I a lot more comic book Superhero than the original Robocop.
 

This is pretty accurate, I think - not Miller (at least not alone), but looking at the ones that sell, and picking out one or two elements as the "reason they sell". I recall reading an article years back speculating on DC trying to emulate the success of early Marvel. So they look at a few books and decide "HEY - Bad art sells!" Well, of course, Marvel was more grounded in reality, so all the DC Supers start talking like the cool 16 - 24 demographic speaks - except they really start speaking like 45 yo WASPs think that generation speaks.
 
"Iron Man sold" or even "MCU sold" does not equal "Super-heros sell". It equals "a solid movie using real super-hero tropes can sell". Just like Dark Knight Returns does not equal "all edgy, nourish Super stories will sell and nothing else will". It really indicated "this different exploration of the character was well done and sells". We remember DKR and Watchmen 30 years later (God, I'm old...) because they were innovative, and great stories, and we forget the blemishes. We also forget the hundreds of other titles that tried to simulate their success but were not innovative, great stories, just tried to don similar trappings and success would follow even if the actual books were crap.
 

I don't see GL in the same light. Techno-suits, robots and cyborgs have been all over Sci Fi cinema, and Iron Man at first glance doesn't look all that different. What's the precedent for a blockbuster hit starring a guy with a magic ring?

I get the distinction you're making, but while IM wasn't rife with comic-book tropes and imagery, what it did include was very important and fundamental to the genre. We have a less-than-admirable lead character who experiences a traumatic event causing him to re-evaluate his entire life, and dedicate himself to making up for past sins and protecting innocent people. That's a textbook superhero origin. The hero's close ally turns out to be his secret nemesis, who takes on a version of the hero's powers so the two of them have to duke it out in the climax. And IM didn't try to disguise its four-color-comic roots: bright vibrant colors, improbable techno-gimmicks, and larger-than-life action sequences.

You know the positive comment about the recent Wonder Woman movie trailer that I've been hearing and reading the most often? The colors. WW's costume is actually bright blue, red, and gold. Her Lasso of Truth glows like Christmas lights. Themiscyra looks like a real sun-drenched Aegean island. Sure, there are some scenes with an overall darker, greyer tone, like the European trenches... but that's appropriate to that setting. WW always stands out against it visually, as she should. The overall color palette looks much broader and more vivid in this movie than in previous WB super films, and people seem to respond to that.
 
It leaves me hopeful that the director, and maybe the studio at last, "get it."

"Classic studio mold" has still made mountains of cash and even some damn good movies now and then. The problem with DC/Warner is not just that they're making bad comic book movies - if they got good reviews and pulled in a broad general audience, it wouldn't matter if fandom complained that they weren't true to the comics. The problem is they're making just plain bad movies. (Or more objectively: movies that have failed to generate much excitement from audiences or critics.)
 
I blame Frank Miller.
 
No really. I know I blame Miller for a lot of things, but hear me out on this one.
 
Warner owns the rights to the biggest, most iconic and recognizable superhero names ever. And yet since Superman II in 1980, the only truly successful superhero films they've put out have been Batman movies. What's the most influential and best-known Batman comic, particularly among non-fans? DKR, no question, will Moore's Killing Joke a distant second. Both Burton's 1989 Batman movie and Nolan's trilogy in the `00s explicitly listed DKR among their biggest influences, and both made tons of money. By contrast, every time they've tried to make a "lighter" superhero movie it's bombed.
 
Unfortunately, rather than concluding "fans will go see superhero movies if they're well made, know what they're about, and hold together reasonably well," the WB Execs have concluded "People love Frank Miller Batman and hate Adam West Batman - no, there's no middle ground here - so everything needs to be Frank Miller-style."
 
Put another way: DC movies went from the Silver Age (West's Batman, Reeves' Superman) straight to the Iron Age, and in their minds, those are the only two options.
 
Meanwhile, Marvel's movies have been much more Bronze Agey, splitting the difference between Silver & Iron. I think in the eyes of the WB Execs, Marvel can get away with it because their heroes are already a little more believable, grounded and relatable - plus, they don't have a lot of Silver Age baggage in the popular consciousness they need to distance themselves from, like WB so obviously feels they need to with the DC characters.
 
So now that the public isn't reacting well to WB's DC movies, they literally don't know what to do to "fix" them without going full on Adam West. So we wind up with Suicide Squad which (from the reviews) can't fully commit to being dark because apparently audiences don't like that anymore, but can't commit to just being a fun action movie because that way lies Adam West and madness. So they try to do both poorly.
 
Help us Geoff Johns. You're our only hope.
 
Edit: To clarify, I'm not actually a big fan of most of Johns' comics. But at least he gets that Adam West and Frank Miller aren't the only two options.

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The costume looks good, so we will complain because it mixes the same colours as other costumes.
 
I'll be happy if it simply turns out that Wally is not the Season 3 "Speedster who infiltrates the team as a friend but turns out to be the Big Bad Guy for the season". Why couldn't Jay Garrick actually BE Jay Garrick?

The start to the Northlands campaign (basically, all characters are young members of the Viking Jarl's household, starting out eager to prove their worth). We are summoned before the Jarl, and assigned the task of watching over his three young daughters as they go out this early Spring day to pick wildflowers for the festival. The daughters range in age from about 9 or 10 to 16. There is an almost apologetic "I know this isn't exactly the assignment a young, eager Viking is hoping for, but there's no one to bash and pillage at the moment" aspect to the speech.
 
When we note that our four PC's consist of a young Elven druid (who's pretty OK with going out to pick wildflowers), a 17 year old warrior (who's OK with it since nothing better's out there) and two...sixteen year old twin sisters, one of whom is likely hard to distinguish from the Jarl's daughters.
 
Now, on the way out, we meet a band of hardy warriors headed back from a (failed) assignment to find a couple of criminals (clearly very nuanced foreshadowing of the foes we will face later in the scenario). One of whom chooses to be insulting, and mock the PC's with their "job of shepherding young girls". 16 YO female PC responds, loudly as they depart, "Of course [Warrior's Name] would think little of such a task. EVERYONE knows he doesn't like girls."

Dunno, I'm not smart enough or informed enough to determine the line between:
 
Gee, I hope some cop kills a black man tomorrow.
or
Wouldn't it be great if the cops killed another black man at the rally tomorrow?
or
Let's shoot a cop at the demonstration today?
or
Hey Officer Jones, I know where you live, you're gonna die in the next few days.