@subgrenades4carrots: All but the second Hulk" in your list was produced by a company that wasn't Marvel. So I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

@Mr.Gawn: As an aside though - I heard something about Marvel trying so set up an indie-film branch, so that lesser-known heroes can get a chance in the spotlight in lower budget movies. If that gets off the ground, you might just get your wish.

@Andy Neil: Ghostbusters is a perfect template. Yes.

@Mr.Gawn: Because Fox doesn't own those.

They're just dumping their money into making this crap because they're afraid of losing the rights back to Marvel. Which is logical, but supremely annoying when Marvel is working so hard to maintain continuity throughout its movie franchises, and here's this IP that's technically theirs, is identified as theirs, was…

I remember "Drag Me to Hell" having an absolutely awesome title card. It just filled the whole screen.

This is perfect compliment to the Fu Man Chu problem. Any time you have a truly worthy villain your hands, but your story is episodic and needs to maintain a certain status quo, you paint yourself into a corner. If that villain dies, your story is over. But killing the villain is the entire goal of the story, so…

@nonpareil: Mystery Men.

@Guizzy: Obviously, it's the english alphabet I need to review :p

@deanbmmv: Your comment about aggregation is just as important as needing a moderation tool, I think.

I would totally have jumped on board with this. I was excited by its announcement, and I was excited when I got invited to be part of it.

@nachtwulf: Actually, rebooting bad stories is responsible storytelling. And we've been doing it for millennia. ;)

@Kitradu: I would argue that you don't even need the second "he said". The dialog is on the same line as the General nodding, so the reader should be able to figure out who is speaking perfectly fine.

@vrey_oneida: lol!

Hahaha, all I can see is Spider-man, in a soft, serious voice, circling Mary Jane and goofily waving his arms at her.

@Mark 2000: I'm not going to do that. You're just being suspicious for the sake of being suspicious. I don't even understand why this argument took place. It should be self-evident that history and technological advancement both happen in cycles. Why would you deny that?