It’s not that it’s necessarily a terrible movie (not just that, anyway), it’s that it co-opted the symbols of the book in such a way as to make it mean something different to be a fan.

This article illustrates a notion I have about the "Batman vs. Superman" debate. Most people, when they imagine that conflict, conceive characters who share Batman and Superman's names and abilities, but lacking the characters' philosophical core or moral underpinnings.

That's wonderful news, and any time people are buying and reading comics is cause for celebration.

Love it. No faster way to lose a friend than to form an alliance with them in RISK.

(Late to the party, sorry if this is a repeat!)

Tastes vary. Most comicbooks require a certain amount of suspension of disbelief. I chose this scene strictly as the most extreme example in my memory of Hawkeye's effectiveness without his bow.

It's a scene from Ultimates 2 where Hawkeye escapes capture. Ultimate Hawkeye tends to be portrayed with Bullseye-levels of deadliness, but the movie version was heavily influenced by this depiction.

There's a fantastic story from Grant Morrison's JLA wherein Connor Hawke, the new Green Arrow, prooves his usefulness to the team and to himself by defeating The Key while the rest of the team is incapacitated. Unlike Batman, whose confidence and ability are nigh superhuman, Hawke has doubts and struggles but…

Ahh, but Hawkeye is never out of ammo. Even if you dont consider Ultimate to be a valid interpretation of the Hawkeye myth (which I personally do) Clint has still been shown to be more than formidable without his weapon of choice. Batman without his utility belt is still Batman.

I think the main thing to remember here is that humanity's fear of mutants isn't based on anything rational, it's just a prejudice. Why do some people hate any particular, arbitrarily defined, group of people? Why would bigots care less about the distinction between Mutant and Mutate than they do between Jew and…

It's not like that exact thing hasn't been tackled before:

I think you're confusing "Superman," with a figure of comparable appearance and abilities, but without Superman's moral alignment, and with a propensity for unwarranted violence. That wouldn't be Superman. Superman wouldn't instantly kill Batman because Batman would likely not have done anything to warrant being…

"Me Tarzan, you Jane," or any variation thereof. It's actually a quote of Johnny Weissmuller in an interview about the film, "Tarzan of the Apes," but never appears in the movie or any of the books. As with the Spider-man line, it's probably safe to assume the line has been used subsequently, having become so…

Agreed, I was being deliberately obtuse for the purpose of humour, sorry.

A writer has to use so many words, can we really expect them to know what each little one means?

I hate that we still haven't gotten a satisfying conclusion to this! I look at The Manhattan Projects (which I also love) and imagine if he had done this concept as a creator-owned and shed a tear for what could have been.

Unless it were a pet rat, which are often kept. And, again, if that were a wild dog instead of a pet, chaos. Judging by how comfortable those animals are with each other, I think it's a safe assumption that they're familiar.

Good choice! I hadn't thought of him and was leaning towards the other guy:

Whoops, you mentioned Saga.

It really is a testament to how good the year was that I can agree with every mention on this list, and still feel that a few others deserve honourable mention. Saga, Manhattan Projects, Five Ghosts, Uncanny Avengers, The Mighty Thor, Young Avengers, Hellboy in Hell, Afterlife With Archie, Black Beetle, and though…