I heard it argued that the Hulk gets stronger the angrier he gets so he'd eventually win out, but isn't there some limitation to how angry a person can get?

I wasn't a big comic book reader as a kid, but I'm fascinated with comic book characters now.

That's pretty much the ending argument for any Hulk vs. debate. At his base strength he's not even as strong as guys like Abomination, Thor, Hercules, Juggernaut, etc. But obviously the more angry he gets, the stronger he gets- basically until he's able to overpower his enemy. Not to mention his healing factor that's probably the strongest in the Marvel universe. He can pretty much keep going forever.

I'd probably take the Supermans strongest incarnation over the Hulk. Although World War Hulk was one of the most badass dudes I've seen.

Seems kinda arbitrary to me, but point taken.

I've heard it said, though, that Superman's moral code keeps him restrained.
That if he truly set his respect for life aside...he'd have unlimited power.

All comic books are. The extent of a hero's power changes with every writer. That's why debates like this will never end.

I can see that. Just read a debate about Superman-Composite v. Professor Hulk. It also alluded to Superboy-Prime. It's definitely an endless debate.

Going back to the movie idea.

Here is my problem(s).

1. Marvel took the time (years) to set up the Avengers universe with the different single movies. Whether you like the individual movies or not, at least you knew the characters, and had some stake in the Avengers movie. Not to mention, they hired a comic dork (Joss Whedon) to do the movie. His intimate knowledge of the characters really showed on the screen.

2. DC is just going to try and ride the wave. They will put out a 3D PoS with lots of pretty colors, but no stories, characters, or plots that anyone will actually care about. The only thing that will drive the movie will be the urge to see a bunch of primetime comic heroes in one setting, but that novelty will wear off after the first 30 minutes if the story sucks.

3. Superman in the WW2 generation was a great hero. He really personified the lifestyle (remember art imitates life) back then, and the basic innocence that we had as a society. Today, his character is very out of place, the Boy Scout attitude just doesn't mesh with a lot of people anymore. He is almost the same as Cpt. America in his thinking. On top of that, his character is ultra-boring. There is no threat, except Kryptonite that can harm him, and I mean actually harm him. Yes, we know about Darkside, but will that ever be brought to a movie, I doubt it. Wonder Woman is the same as supes, except she has boobs. This leaves the audience caring very little about what happens because there is no suspense. You never wonder if he supes is going to make it or not, because how could he possibly not.

4. I would rather see a Superman vs. Batman. Or, something that I know will never happen, Marvel vs. DC. Avengers vs. JLA. That would be awesome, even if it was terrible.

I think the real difference between Marvel and DC movies is that Marvel movies are made by Marvel, and DC movies are made by Warner Bros. Even now that Marvel is owned by Disney, they're still their own Pixar-esque fiefdom (for however much longer that lasts). The people in charge of making DC movies are movie executives who aren't capable of creative thinking beyond "we must copy the most recent successful thing".

Also I don't understand the logic that says Superman stories lack suspense because he's too powerful. Did you really get to end of the Avengers movie and think "I don't know if Tony's going to make it out of this one!" The suspension of disbelief is the same. It's fiction, all you have to do to make something that can hurt Superman is say "this can hurt Superman".

Remember also that much of the Marvel movies' success was due to them taking characters that few people knew, and introducing them through the movies. Lots here have said that they didn't know Hawkeye, Black Widow, Thor, or even Iron Man until the movies came out. DC could, conceivably, introduce us to the likes of Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Zatanna, or even - since people know their images much more than they know their actual characters - Flash and Wonder Woman. They have done it before, and recently, with Watchmen.

Their biggest issue would be seeming like Avengers knock-offs now. Both companies have consistently tried to not seem like they're copying the other, dating back to the 60's, because they know it would be the quickest way for them to be seen as the second tier. Personally, I think DC's weaker characters make them second tier anyway, but there are plenty of others who feel the opposite.

Even if DC does try a JLA movie - which I don't they will any time soon - they can't possibly do it in the same way as Marvel just did with the Avengers. They just rolled the dice with their whole company by restarting the entire storyline; I think their energy will be in that, and maybe animated TV series bases on it, for a while.

"X-Men: First Class" was essentially a reboot that didn't require individual franchises leading up to its release.

They could pull the JL film off without preceding franchises.

Let's not forget that "Avengers" was great...because it was a great film on its own merit. If they'd done all the preceding groundwork and made a stink nugget that work would've been in vain.

Best point so far. If they try to tell the story of a bunch of thirtysomething already-established heroes who meet in a boardroom and say, "Let's form a league", it'll suck balls. If they go the "First Class" route, and introduce the characters when younger, it'll work better. Show them coming into their own, figuring out their powers, teaming up to fight some threat. ("Smallville" did this, but they started a little too early, showing them as teens. I think a "JL" film should show them as children and teens in the first half hour, to establish the characters and their powers, but show them teaming up when they're more like 20 years old.)

They need a Joss Whedon.
Without strong writing they'll be unable to duplicate what Singer/Turner did with X-Men: FC.

If they're going to take that route, they may as well use the Teen Titans.

They actually did have Joss Whedon for a Wonder Woman movie about 5 years ago but blew it. They could've had him helping them build the DC movie universe instead of working on The Avengers.

I forgot about that.

Rebooted Batman to Debut in JUSTICE LEAGUE?

I received a bit of intel here recently that involves the Batman on film reboot and the inevitable JUSTICE LEAGUE film.
It’s looking as a live-action JUSTICE LEAGUE film -- the one currently being penned by Will Beall for Warner Bros. -- just might be the studio’s first big, DC Comics-based tent pole movie after 2013’s MAN OF STEEL. This JL film would, possibly, hit theaters Summer 2015. So, exactly WHAT does this have to do with BATMAN REBOOTED? Read on…

Said reboot will come after the JL film, not before. Therefore, the new cinematic Batman will be introduced in the JL film as opposed to a solo film. This would, according to my industry "FOBOF," assure the new Batman film series will be part of a "DC Cinematic Universe."

Keep in mind that this is based on industry scuttlebutt, so take it with a grain of salt. However, if indeed true (And this FOBOF is solid as they come, trust me!) this is not good news for the solo Batman franchise in my opinion. I’d like the next director of the rebooted cinematic Batman to have more creative control over the character -- something that’s not likely to happen of this scenario plays out.

I have some very strong opinions about this that I shall reserve for an op-ed piece in the near future.