massey

Its on CW so its gonna be awful, it doesn't even really matter what the content is.

If Thanos was the only good villain that Marvel had to pick from in the past 50 years, it might be worth filling his backstory more, but I'd rather see someone else take the screentime.

I don't really care how Thanos came to be "who he was" any more than I cared how Darth Vader came to be who he was. This need to go back and examine the early lives of characters who became iconic at the end of their lives is rarely worth the time and effort put into it. Let's just let Thanos remain the best MCU villain there ever was and leave it at that. Deconstructing him will only dilute his mystique.

That's unrecognizable as Wonder Woman, so I hope its just some weird side costume she gets handed to wear instead of her real duds.

Emphasis added.  This would be part of a guide for players and GMs - certain abilities are simply not permitted in this game.  In your more detailed example, that would include reliable long-distance transportation powers.  Abilities that would be both useful and appropriate should also be detailed.  Absolute requirements, such as taking orders from the War Office ("you need to take the cruise liner because Dr. and Mrs. MacGuffin are taking the cruise liner, and his research is crucial to the war effort, so we can't take any chances something will go wrong on the trip, but Dr. MacGuffin is pigheaded stubborn and will not cooperate with an open security detail.")

What we do NOT need is a film with a big origin story.  I was tired of origin stories after the first Spider-Man.  Do it like Burton did with Batman, where you get a flashback or a few moments of information rather than half the damned film.  The Fantastic Four got their powers testing out a rocket and got hit by a freak wave of power that was carried on cosmic radiation.  What was it?  Maybe a future story.  Who cares right now?  They have powers, now here's the story.  By now people are used to the concept of superheroes and do not need it spoon fed to them.

There is a line between "adventure", which does include likely encounters, even if they are not fixed, and a "setting" where there are a variety of potential adventures, which the PCs may or may not choose to engage with, and the GM is left to flesh out, if not design entirely, the aspects the players choose to interact with.  At one extreme, there is the linear, encounter by encounter, railroad.  At the other is a vast setting and wherever the PCs go, so be it - if the first thing they stumble across as novices is the Lair of the Arch-Lich, well, maybe the next ones will live long enough to have two encounters.  And if they decide to leave the whole campaign setting, the GM can just write a new one.
 
Maybe they wanted to be super bank robbers, not super heroes.  So be it.
 
Sometimes, the sandbox is no fun for players either - one of the best descriptions I have heard is the sandbox becoming the rowboat.  "You are in a rowboat in a vast open featureless sea.  What do you do?"
 
Just as many of us as GMs have lives that preclude devoting the time to build the game world and the adventure up from scratch, many of us as players do not have the time to devote to study an extensive campaign backstory to build characters with goals integrated to both the setting and the other PCs and dictate the course of campaign events.  Build characters who want to follow adventure hoods, rather than characters whose goals, objectives and personalities leave them no desire to be involved with the game. 
 
When Player C announces that "My character's ambition is to live a peaceful life and run a small tea shoppe.  He is not interested in anything that does not directly further that goal.", he has no right to be offended when Players A, B, D  and E note that "Our characters are setting out for a life of piracy on the High Seas, like the one paragraph campaign summary we all agreed to indicated.  I guess we will see yours later, maybe, if and when we return to this port."
 
I would suggest that Hero is a better system than D&D for a sandbox-type game, as it does not have (or at least does not embed - it can certainly simulate) the steep power curve of D&D.

I find that hard to believe

Desolid, not if attacker makes an Ego roll

We got a great Loki.  He showed up as the behind the scenes player in Thor, then a part of the alien invasion in Avengers, and then roles in the Thor films.
 
We got a great Thanos, first in a cameo in Avengers, then in what really was HIS film after the Avengers characters were well established.
 
So how about a film or two establishing the FF against other adversaries, perhaps with some cameos, Doom in the Background and/or flashback to Reed and Ben in college with Victor (even the start of Doom's origin).  Then make him the Big Bad in, say, the third FF film when we have seen glimpses (easter eggs for the comic fans) and he can really be the focus because we have gotten to know the Four.

I think they should get the same guy to play Johnny Storm that played him in the 2005 and 2007 movies.  I think he did a great job.  Wonder what ever happened to him... 

Who is being punished, the audience or the cast & crew? 

Can we have a different Doom?

Yes, but a clarification is needed.  Hero has cranked out multiple sets of rules from huge to small.  There already exists a bare minimum 6th Edition rule book.  The problem is Hero rulebooks are not playable as they are.  Hero rulebooks are basically design documents that can be used to create a game.  What is really needed is a "set" that would allow a brand new player to buy the box on Monday, read it Tuesday and run a intro session on Wednesday. 
 
Too many people don't understand that building characters, NPCs and such is not the objective and is not playing. 
 
Running a PC in an adventure is playing.

Desolid, not if attacker makes an Ego roll

How about making gatherings of more than 2 people illegal?  Most people are annoying after more than 20 minutes in-person anyway.

You're talking about "all members of society" and "changing people's attitudes" in a broad sense. Generally, Americans aren't particularly any more violent than anyone else. Why target the general population versus the populations that account for the majority of gun homicides?
 
It seems like these conversations always start with a mass shooting then veer off to general gun violence solutions, including statistics about how the US has more gun crime, how our culture is more violent, etc. If we want to reduce crimes like mass shootings, we need to look at the minds of mass shooters, not the general population. If we want to reduce general gun crimes, we need to look at the populations that are committing the bulk of those crimes: career criminals and gangs. I don't see this as a general problem that can be handled by restricting the largely peaceful bulk of our population and infringing on their rights without first addressing the specific problem populations.

Supes and Thor are just different characters.  MCU Thor isn't comic book Thor, but I still like the character.  Up to that point, we've had 3 Thor movies and 3 previous Avengers movies to get to know him.  We've also had those clips with Thor and his roommate Darryl, and honestly by Endgame we just really really like Thor.  Then when he's got his chance to undo everything bad, it turns out the villain has beaten them to the punch.  It's the Ozymandius "I did it thirty five minutes ago" moment.
 
And so Thor chops his effing head off.
 
Here's a guy who we've spend 6 movies growing to love, and we completely understand his frustration and despair, and he has a completely human moment and he does what many of us might do in that moment.  He becomes more like Eric Draven in The Crow, or Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.  It's a completely righteous execution of a completely terrible man.  It's cathartic, and yet it doesn't put anything right.  It's not a great heroic moment, but it is a great heroic failure.  It's an awesome moment in the film.  It's final but in a sense it's also anti-climactic.  We're expecting there to be this great battle where the heroes fix everything, and instead Thor kills him and now there's nothing for the heroes to do except live the rest of their lives in a half-dead world.  Thanos is dead, but the heroes still lost.
 
Superman's neck snap isn't unjustified.  I'm not saying he's a villain for killing Zod, or even that he was wrong.  He had to do it, but the filmmaker didn't give it nearly the same dramatic weight as Thor's decapitation.  They haven't even established that Superman has a code versus killing at that point.  Obviously he doesn't want to kill Zod, but there's no indication that he has anything more than the normal "reluctance to kill" that all of us have (and that we get no points for).  Now again, Thor doesn't have it at all, but they aren't the same character.

Supes and Thor are just different characters.  MCU Thor isn't comic book Thor, but I still like the character.  Up to that point, we've had 3 Thor movies and 3 previous Avengers movies to get to know him.  We've also had those clips with Thor and his roommate Darryl, and honestly by Endgame we just really really like Thor.  Then when he's got his chance to undo everything bad, it turns out the villain has beaten them to the punch.  It's the Ozymandius "I did it thirty five minutes ago" moment.
 
And so Thor chops his effing head off.
 
Here's a guy who we've spend 6 movies growing to love, and we completely understand his frustration and despair, and he has a completely human moment and he does what many of us might do in that moment.  He becomes more like Eric Draven in The Crow, or Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven.  It's a completely righteous execution of a completely terrible man.  It's cathartic, and yet it doesn't put anything right.  It's not a great heroic moment, but it is a great heroic failure.  It's an awesome moment in the film.  It's final but in a sense it's also anti-climactic.  We're expecting there to be this great battle where the heroes fix everything, and instead Thor kills him and now there's nothing for the heroes to do except live the rest of their lives in a half-dead world.  Thanos is dead, but the heroes still lost.
 
Superman's neck snap isn't unjustified.  I'm not saying he's a villain for killing Zod, or even that he was wrong.  He had to do it, but the filmmaker didn't give it nearly the same dramatic weight as Thor's decapitation.  They haven't even established that Superman has a code versus killing at that point.  Obviously he doesn't want to kill Zod, but there's no indication that he has anything more than the normal "reluctance to kill" that all of us have (and that we get no points for).  Now again, Thor doesn't have it at all, but they aren't the same character.

His failure wasn't in killing Thanos.  That never entered into it.  It never bothered Thor at all.  Do you think Odin, father of Hela, would be bothered by the idea of his son executing Thanos?
 
Thor's failure was in not killing Thanos in time.
 
 
It wasn't heroic for Thor to kill Thanos as he did.  Not at all.  That was the point of that scene -- they had failed as heroes.  All that was left was to render judgment.  Thanos absolutely deserved it.  Even 2014 Thanos recognized that.

For my part, I never expected Superman to be perfect. I didn't share the Zod neck outrage, because he was put in a situation where he had no choice. The widespread destruction in Metropolis was likely to have caused much innocent death, so that's much harder to rationalize; but I'm willing to attribute that to inexperience, and Zod choosing the battlefield (although I actually believe it was directorial sloppiness). I would have accepted all of that as part of Superman's growth as a true hero, if BVS hadn't taken him in the opposite direction.
 
The concern I have with Superman is that, even more than Thor, Superman is a god among men. All his life he's been aware his power is far greater than ordinary men. He's had to constantly restrain himself. He's always afraid that if he loses control innocent people will die. Otherworld-type stories have shown time and again that when Superman uses all his powers to their fullest extent, guided by his great intelligence and experience, he's practically unstoppable. Such godlike power needs to be in the hands of a paragon of virtue. Superman can have flaws, but he can't be undisciplined, impulsive, prone to rage, considering himself above the law. The consequences of those behaviors would be too terrible, and the world would have every right to be afraid of him.

This I totally agree with. It was something of a moment of cowardice and moment of courage... could he stand to ACTUALLY find out if he was worthy or not? Easy to wallow and "feel" unworthy... a whole 'nother level to find out you actually ARE! After talking to his mother, he had the psychological strength to find out. Very powerful scene, and again, probably my favorite bit (Thor and his mom) in the whole movie.

The Arctic Police showed up and hauled Lex, Otis, and the Kryptonians off to prison.

Well, it's quite possible that adventure modules are sort of a "loss leader" for RPGs.  They may not sell great, but you really only need one guy to buy the adventure, and then the four or five people in his gaming group end up purchasing the rulebook.  And it's possible that they are sort of a prerequisite to having a successful game.  If you don't make them, people don't pick up your system.
 
A series of adventure modules, kind of like Paizo's adventure paths, that told a story like a comic book would be interesting.  The first module could introduce a hero team, and then you run them through the equivalent of like a 50 issue story arc.  Think the New Teen Titans from the early 80s.  Each module could cover like the equivalent of 7 or 8 issues, complete with DNPC story hooks, intro of new villains, power complication subplots, newly revealed backstory, new villain character sheets, etc.  You could have four or five different storylines, with different hero groups, going at the same time.  Perhaps fleshing out the universe that way instead of just focusing on sourcebooks would be a better idea.