@twophrasebark: As it currently stands, this Spider-Man film will not be hitting theaters until July 3, 2012. At that point, over five years will have passed since Spider-Man 3 was released. I'd say the franchise has taken a breather. Now, as to whether or not we really need another Spider-Man…

Why aren't those characters casting a shadow on the top of that bridge? They're completely detached from the background.

@Tyrunn: No, I never have. In fact, I've never quoted "Short Round" even once. I have a fair amount of disdain for kid sidekicks.

@Tyrunn: Those were minor elements in the franchise, & neither added to, or took away from, the over all entertainment value of the earlier films.

@Tyrunn: It was also the least fun.

The last film did an excellent job of killing the spirit of Indiana Jones. It would be a kindness to put the aged meat bag that remains out of it's misery.

@Kitsune-Hazard: This is the same network that gave us NYPD Blue, at one time the edgiest show on television. It didn't pull any punches, & it paved the way for shows like The Shield. Critical & commercial success has a tendency to keep the corporate wolves at bay. In the end, they just want to make money.

@SuperNintendo Chalmers: I guarantee you won't see Ant Man.

@collex: NBC has aired Law & Order: S.V.U. for close to, if not, 10 years. While it's not likely that any network show is going to graphically depict rapes on screen, they certainly don't have to pull any punches dealing with or discussing the topic, & they can be fairly frank in depicting the aftermath.

@Charlie Jane Anders: You're making that up. What possible defense could someone have mounted for X-Men Origins: Wolverine? That film was eXcruciatingly eXecrable.

Nice cameo appearance by the costumes of Aquaman, Impulse, & Cyborg. I guess they were there to pay their respects to Shayera's helmet.

So, you've got a "whole theory about why Titus Andronicus is an underrated Shakespearean masterpiece" & you're not going to share it with the class? Well, that's neither fair, just, nor right.

@astrogea: Clam bake.

The "parodies" of the old Batman & Star Trek shows had a certain novelty appeal to them. This doesn't. Some whore dressed like Wonder Woman being the guest of honor at a dueling sausage party? Seriously, who's watching this?

Star Trek. I remember seeing it, in syndication, late at night, when it was past my bedtime. I always got caught, & never actually saw an entire episode of the original series until I was in my early teens. I was able to follow the cartoon though, since it aired on Saturday mornings.

@sicboi: You'd think that, & it's certainly become one of the rules regarding the character for decades now, but in the first year of Batman's publication he actually did carry a gun. Note the holster in the above image.

@sicboi: Yeah, but the shocked expressions on the faces of the likes of the Penquin, or The Riddler, when Batman just whips out a piece & plugs them, would be priceless.

@MisterOkapi: Batman used a gun for about the first year of his publication history. As near as I can tell, gunning down scumbags went out the window when Robin was introduced, in 1940. Batman's costume noticeably changes at this point, eliminating the gun & holster that hung from his hip.

I would have gone to see Wall-E had the poster looked like that.

It's not that the costume designs are bad, really, it's that they aren't any better than what he's wearing now. They're still very obviously costumes, so if you're not trying to get away from the costume, then there's no reason to change it. This is a big issue I had with Watchmen. They all still wore showy costumes,…