Wow, because most people absolutely hated that, since it meant that unless you were a Usenet/BBS geek, buying something like "StarTropics" used was a recipe for disaster.

Considering I'm not a Trump supporter but am to the left of liberals, no, I don't. I think the impotence of liberalism in response to it will drive more liberals into the left.

As I understand if from recent movies, both long, long ago and the far future are characterized by disproportionate influence over humanity by the cast of Lost.

Pfft, no you're not

Yeah, use Disqus comments like John the whiny little bitch

Comic relief droid dismemberment and torture

I've never seen them adhere strictly to one of those comic book marketing plans in their movies before.

If I were DC/Time Warner I'd stick to DC superheroes with a higher profile. They haven't really proven their abilities to pursue a Guardians of the Galaxy-style gambit.

Horror is synergistic. It plays well with other genres.

It's just an approach that takes the material from those books as a body of work (it is) that's approachable for all of these people to read at once, regardless of their relative love for the creators, superheroes, etc. It's not "weird" just because you'd prefer it have happened another way.

Your comments embody what's being described.

Yeah, "I'm not gonna give these books a pass or the benefit of the doubt because I don't like superheroes" didn't sit well with me.

I stopped reading X-Men comics in large part because I got tired of mutants-as- metaphor. Using bigotry against mutants as a literary tool to talk about racism or xenophobia or sexism or homophobia is only so useful without including people who aren’t white, European/American, male, and cis/straight.

The terms don't really matter, as, again, this isn't some sort of SAG legal case. They were pushing Snyder's input to the press. Now they've shut up about it. And that's funny to me.

Hey, I'm happy to blame Johns, who ran out of ideas a decade ago. I'm just pointing out that they buried Snyder as a contributor while touting him last year, and it's funny.

Is this one of those "evidence of absence is not absence of evidence" arguments? But like, reversed?

It was Howard Stark's long-range prototype, which he built when he was 3. Now, you may be asking, "Isn't Howard Stark from Marvel, not DC?" But to answer that, first, we need to talk about parallel universes.

I don't know what their reasoning was. Could be that Time Warner thought it was a good idea to tell the public he was co-writing at the time, true or not, then thought better of it given the sustained critical backlash against Batman v Superman. Or, because of the box office on his movies, it may have served their…

You're not following the analogy. You're saying that someone getting something wrong proves this is a hoax. I'm explaining that factual errors do not prove something is a hoax.

Someone being wrong about something doesn't make it a hoax. By that definition, no speech ever delivered by the President of the United States was delivered by him if it contained an error.