I think there are more than 3:
By that point, we’d had Sif, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Gamora, Pepper, and Mantis by the end of GotG2. Arguably Nebula, too.
Of course she’s a superhero.
Doesn’t diminish my point.
This comes up once in a while in discussions about Batman and the general consensus is that he is a superhero even with his lack of superpowers. In Marvel, Hawkeye also has no powers and yet he’s also a member of the Avengers and is considered a superhero by most.
Yeah, I kept on hoping it would end.
Being a superhero is what you do, not what you are. Like Batman, Black Widow definitely did the job of a superhero. That made her one.
ZING! 
This reality show huckster is pissing me off. He and his cohort have already made Discovery Networks–once a decent source of interesting programming–into absolute garbage. Now he is in charge of one of Anglo-American culture’s most valuable collections of cultural properties–DC Comics, Blade Runner, Casablanca, Looney Tunes, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and of course all the HBO shows that have led the renaissance of American television. I really hope his reign of sewage is short and the damage he does is minimal.
Neither does Iron Man. Nor War Machine. Nor Falcon.
“Big man in a suit of armor. Take that away and what are you?”
“Genius, Billionaire, Playboy, Philanthropist.”
Saying Iron Man and the others aren’t “superheroes” because they don’t have innate powers is ludicrous. But how far afield of the topic at hand (shitty Batgirl movie, in case you forgot) are we willing to take this hijack?
I can do this all day.
I understood that reference!
Iron Man is definitely, unambiguously, superhuman, by any measure: He’s super-smart. Falcon and War Machine, one can make an argument against: They’re both just well-trained soldiers using tech that someone else invented.
I don’t agree with that argument, but one can make it.
It’s because they’re black, isn’t it? 
The guy isn’t very popular in these parts; my daughter pointed out to me yesterday that he’s the one responsible for moving Discovery HQ out of Silver Spring, MD.
The same is often said of Batman, Hawkeye, Green Arrow and others. No ordinary human has the strength endurance and toughness of Batman, and perhaps intelligence as well. Hawkeye and Green Arrow display coordination, strength, and accuracy in sending arrows to their target despite the sometimes heavy and non-aerodynamic qualities of those arrows.
Even if you qualify those abilities as super-powers they still pale in comparison to the clearly obvious super powers of incredible strength, speed, and invulnerability, and beyond that to the power of flight, energy discharges, invisibility, teleportation, and more, possibly enhanced by technology as well. Well recognized super-powers seem as advanced from ordinary humans as they do from those humans who are a little bit faster, stronger, or smarter than ordinary.
The stories told of these lesser heroes occasionally makes them appear close to par in comparison to their better enhanced comrades but I assume that is the storyteller’s tendency to focus on the man bites dog type story. In reality, without the aid of technology, these slightly improved human abilities are no physical match for the heroes and villains with true superpowers.
Well, of course Morbius will harm future Morbii, but they wouldn’t have been better off NOT releasing it; then you’re just starting over if you try to make another, anyway, but you’re just more in the hole to start with. (Morbius broke even, more or less- it was not an expensive production.)
It’s hard to believe Batgirl wouldn’t have broken even. No matter how terrible it was, it was a DC property and people will pay for that crap, as they did with Morbius.
Well done, Zach. You found out that people prefer good movies.
Wonder Woman certainly wasn’t a perfect film, but it was pretty good. Captain Marvel was not good.
Oddly, one of the thing I preferred about Wonder Woman was the main character, which is kind of amazing given the leads; Brie Larson is an Oscar-winning actress, and deservedly so, while Gal Gadot is, um… not an Oscar-winning actress, shall we say. But they wrote WW really well and used Gadot correctly, whereas Captain Marvel seems to change from scene to scene and often even WITHIN a scene, ruining the fact they had a legitimately A-grade performer at their disposal.
I love the Captain Marvel movie. It’s the Marvel movie I’ve rewatched the most often. Tastes vary.
And I think that points out the better management of Marvel movies than DC movies. Marvel movies have enough variety in style to appeal to different audiences. DC movies keep hammering at grimdark.
And, the two DC movies in recent years which had the best reception – Wonder Woman and Shazam – were both definitely not grimdark, and were untouched by Zack Snyder.
The fact they can afford to make the movie, though, does not explain why they do. Making a $200 million movie like The Gray Man only makes sense of they make additional money as the result of making it - that is to say, they have to then realize substantially more than $200 million in revenue as the result of making the Gray Man, to account for having spent it on that movie instead of keeping the money in the bank or using it in some other manner.
In that regard, I really struggle with buying the idea that it’s worth it. Will The Gray Man actually hike Netflix subscriptions by THAT much? Really? I’m no expert, but it seems to me that with few exceptions the things that make people want to keep Netflix subscriptions are
- Super popular series, like Stranger Things, Squid Game, The Witcher, etc., and
- Having a very large selection of cheap series and comedy specials.
When they do hit a home run with a movie it’s not necessarily an expensive one. “Bird Box” was crazy popular but didn’t cost $200 million to make - in fact, most sources put it at on tenth of that. “Don’t Look Up” was wildly successful and had a star-studded cast but only cost $75 million.
You would think someone over at DC would have figured that out by now.
I also preferred CM to WW, although not by much.
It may be that they view it more about retaining subscribers than adding new ones, by regularly providing a big-time tentpole film or series. I suspect that they have a fair number of subscribers who only keep their subscriptions active when there is something specific they want to watch, and then de-activate it for a while.