I get Tony Scott's point about the genre, and in the main, I agree with him. Furthermore, eff the stereotype, my love of comic-books makes me pine for the end of this wave. All that said, I think Tony misses something here:
to paraphrase something the Joker says to Batman, “The Dark Knight” has rules, and they are the conventions that no movie of this kind can escape. The climax must be a fight with the villain, during which the symbiosis of good guy and bad guy, implicit throughout, must be articulated. The end must point forward to a sequel, and an aura of moral consequence must be sustained even as the killings, explosions and chases multiply. The allegorical stakes in a superhero are raised — it’s not just good guys fighting bad guys, but Righteousness against Evil, Order against Chaos — precisely to authorize a more intense level of violence.
Hmm, those seem likee rules developed by executives who see comic book movies as huge summer blockbusters. They aren't inherent to the genre at all. One of the best things about comic books is that, in the proper hands, you can do incredibly detailed character development, and deal with some really major themes. No movie could give you the character development that Chris Claremont pulled out of Storm during the years when she had no powers. If anything the problem with comic books today is they live in this era where we just go from event to event. Writers rarely stay with a book for more than a couple years and everytime you turn around some editor is trying to generate "buzz" by killing a major character, or almost literally invoking deux ex machina. In other words, while some may pine for a day when movies aren't dominated by superheroes, I pine for a day when comic books can stop trying to be like movies.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I appreciated the article, but I disagreed with it being the "end" of comic book movies. I suppose that superhero movies may have peaked, but saying there should be no more comic movies is like saying there should be no more adaptations of novels. Personally, I'd love for them to adapt Maus, so one day when I have kids of my own, they could experience a powerful animated movie with a great narrative, even if it a comic.
It all depends how the studios pull off "Watchmen" (http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/). If it stays true to the comic it can work against some of the typical movie expectations and move the movie+comic genre forward (as it did with comics) or it can turn into more of the same and probably help to kill off the current wave.
gonna disagree with part of this. The confrontation between the villain and the hero is inherent in Western-style storytelling .. the French Academy called it the "scene necessaire." As long as you've got a protagonist and an antagonist, at some point they face off, and that's the highpoint of the story. (The most efficient example I have ever seen is in Frederick Forsyth's novel The Day of the Jackal, where, three pages before the end, French detective Claude Lebel breaks into the apartment where the Jackal waits with his gun: "'Chacal," he said. The other man said simply, 'Lebel.'" Then they immediately try to kill each other.)
You can have the necessary scene take place off-camera, the way it did in "No Country for Old Men," but then everyone who watches it experiences a moment of dislocation, since they're all expecting it. But it's got to happen. Comic books are no exception to this rule.
Right, but if that's the case why selectively apply that limitation comic book movies? That means that this is true of basically everything from Westerns to Sci Fi...
Actually, I think the true media heir to comic books is series television/video. With 22 episodes, you have time for far more character development, and the requirements of form, like the scene necessaire, take up much less resource, and have more impact, because you have been anticipating it so long.
That isn't my idea, it's Joss Whedons. I expect him to develop that idea further in his work, which I eagerly anticipate.
By the way, re: The Hulk and Superman Returns. I find these both to be exceptional films. Exceptionally good. No, really. I know I'm in the minority with that opinion, but box office success is not identical to filmmaking success.
Superman Returns was a great piece of work in that it made Superman more interesting than I ever thought he could be.
The Hulk was everything a Hulk movie ought to be, from character to effects, to the three-panel "comic book" visual format.
It's clear that Tom isn't really familiar with comic books as a genre. Not because of his article, which has its strengths...but because he wrote it very near to the date that the watchmen trailer was released. even if watchmen sucks as a movie (i don't think this is likely), it still takes almost everything we know about the regular comic book movie and flips it on its head.
I am 100% in agreement with Dr. Jay. I would also like to add that I think Hancock a completely underrated movie. I loved it. Not only was the plot tighter and more interesting than Batman's latest, but the special effects were better and more plot advancing.
The public doesn't even know what it likes, let alone what is good. Superman Returns was the first real Superman movie. That airplane in the baseball stadium is what Supes is all about.