Mark Hughes' editorial on Batman-on-film.com about how Warner Bros should develop the DC Movie Universe building up to a "Justice League" movie was well-written and reasoned, saying they should develop heroes solo and then make that movie. I argue (as some have in the comments) that Warners should just make "Justice League" now. They've blown it with solo movies. Hughes makes a great point that WB should build the solo characters (Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, etc) in their own movies first and then build "JL" on the momentum, similar to how "The Avengers" was pulled off.

"Besides spreading the financial risk and helping provide financial backing for all the other related and future endeavors, starting with solo franchises also gives each character the necessary time to shine on their own and establishes them in film continuity, so that it’s unnecessary to address background and origins within a Justice League film later."

The catch is that WB can't afford that time. Christopher Nolan's "Dark Knight Trilogy" exists in a world without superheroes other than Batman, to the point where his parents are shot in "Batman Begins" outside of an operahouse, not the showing of "Zorro" of myth. Bringing Batman into a franchise set in a world with superheroes will require another reboot (which will probably happen anyway) but as I've mentioned before audiences get kind of unsettled about reboots less than 5 years out. "Green Lantern" left audiences lukewarm and underperformed at the box office, so a sequel is not confirmed; Huges notes it did about as well as "The Incredible Hulk," but it should be noted Marvel isn't planning on another Hulk film. Forget about Wonder Woman, that property has been in development hell for years (every nerd who wants to point out Joss Whedon was working on it briefly may do so now). The biggest hope that "solo into ensemble movie" approach is if "Man of Steel," the upcoming Superman reboot, somehow references the world of "Green Lantern" and builds momentum for a "JL" movie. Maybe have Angela Basset come back as Amanda Waller, or even have the upcoming "Arrow" figure into everything. But if they don't tie it in somehow, they need to go full speed ahead.

Building up and getting people excited for a "Justice League" movie is all well and good, but the various comics and TV series have been getting by expecting people to have some knowledge of the characters as they go in for years. Just make the movie. Geoff Johns' "Justice League" series launched last year before we got any new/updated solo series. The general public knows who Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Flash and Aquaman are. They may not necessarily know their origins or secret identities, but in a ensemble movie like this, they don't have to. Instead of languishing the franchises in reboots and development hell, give everyone what they want. Developing the cast solo only works if all the movies are great ("Iron Man") or at least enjoyable ("Thor," "Captain America"). "Green Lantern" was neither of these things, and we have no idea on "Man of Steel." Honestly if you just focus on the cast of the original appearance (GL, Aquaman, Flash, Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter), then you just bring in Ryan Reynolds and build the cast around him, which even "Waiting" could pull off. Bring in Supes and Bats for the sequel.

C'mon DC and Warner Bros, don't bury the punchline. Give us "Justice League" in 2014.

This post originally appeared on Kyle's Geeky Blog About Comics.

It's time that comic book numbering become a thing of the past. I realize it's heretical to suggest the end of one of the longest running traditions in comics. Comic book sequential numbering should be a way to keep comics in a reading order and mark publishing milestones. But now, at best it's a way to boost sales, and at worst it's completely arbitrary and pointless.

In a perfect world, issue numbering is a way to keep things straight when you're reading, so you know what story comes before/after what, and so on. But we're living in a post-event, crossover, guest spot, reboot, miniseries, maxiseries, annuals world, so you can't just read issues 1-25 and get the entire story. Back in the 90's a crossover meant you needed to buy nearly every comic a company was putting out, because the character you were following got into certain peril and you wanted to see how they got back out. Not to mention figuring out where things like zero issues, .1 issues, and 1/2 issues fit into your reading. Hell, remember back in the late 90's when Marvel put out -1 issues?

If an issue #500 of any particular series, it usually feels like some kind of accomplishment, like the is the 500th issue of Spider-Man or Batman. The aptly named "Superman," eventually became "The Adventures of Superman" while another "Superman" was launched, until that "Superman" was cancelled, and "Adventures" became "Superman" again, ran about 700 issues. It even had a #0 issue for Zero Hour. There was some outcry from fans when DC did their big "New 52" relaunch of all their titles back at #1, because several titles was nearing closer to 1000 issues. If they'd kept on that path, there may have eventually been an 1000th issue of "Superman", but that wouldn't have been the 1000th appearance of Superman starring in a comic. There probably have already been 1000 issues of Superman comics, considering the character's first appearance in "Action Comics," which was almost at #1000 itself.

Fans might get their wish anyway. The Big Two (Marvel and DC) like to randomly renumber titles, either by taking on a huge anniversary number (like Marvel's recent "Thor" #600, "Wolverine" #300 and "Invincible Iron Man" #500), or just a new #1 aimed at getting new readers or old readers back on board. Publishers know readers tend to come back to a title if it's a big anniversary issue, so a title's issue number will jump greatly to get that anniversary bump. That new issue numbering may not always be factually accurate. A few issues after Marvel renumbered "Invincible Iron Man" to #500, there was a feature in the letters column where a reader had counted up all the issues and come to the conclusion that the issue was actually #503. The editor replied that Marvel considered the last few issues of the previous volume ("Iron Man: Director of SHIELD") to not count as part of the 500, since they'd been renamed "War Machine: Weapon of SHIELD" to tie-in with the event "Secret Invasion", continuing the previous issue's numbering at #33. Ironically, "Director of SHIELD" started out as the fourth volume of "Invincible Iron Man", and itself was renamed after "Civil War." This shows the random nature how these anniversary issues, there weren't 500 consecutive issues of "Thor," just like there weren't 700 consecutive issues of "Superman." "Thor" originally started out as "Journey Into Mystery," eventually was renamed to "Thor," and was recently titled "Journey" again alongside a relaunched "The Mighty Thor." Publishers will basically decide numbering how they want.

DC may have restarted all their titles at #1, but that didn't mean you were getting the start of the story. "Green Lantern" #1 or "Batman" #1 weren't the first stories with those characters in this new universe; if you picked up GL #1 and wanted more backstory, you'd have to go back to "Green Lantern Rebirth," the miniseries that started current scribe Geoff Johns' run at least. It's even more mysterious where to start with Batman; you could possibly go back to "Year One," but there's no way to be sure unless DC says so. Getting the first issue typically means "origin story" or "jumping-on point designed at catching new readers up," but now it just means "There's a #1 on this cover."

Literally no other western form of periodical storytelling uses this numbering convention. TV shows might make a point of announcing their 50th or 100th episode, but typically just number seasons (tell me off the top of your head which episode of Seinfeld is #115.). If a movie franchise goes beyond more than 3 films, typically they drop the number convention and go to subtitles (there have been over 20 James Bond 007 movies, but there was never a "James Bond 2"). Daily/weekly comic strips just have a title and byline. Other published media like magazines or books don't use this either; "The Hobbit" wasn't called "The Lord of the Rings" #0.You can fall back on the "comics are not (insert medium here)" argument, but if no other medium uses this, there's no point in a convention that doesn't add anything.

My proposal is to get rid of issue numberings and replace them with the Volume/Publishing Month/Year convention (aka cover date), like magazines use. Instead of "Amazing Spider-Man" #6xx, just say ASM Feb '12, (or Late Feb '12 if it ships bimonthly), and include a volume number on the inside legal indica. These dates are already used on issues (albeit one month ahead, as this was originally devised to let newsstands know when to remove unsold product), so only a minor change would be needed. Nearly every book the major two publish has a page somewhere advertising when the next issue is coming out, complete with a cover image, So many writers are using social media to promote their work that it only takes a Twitter account to know when the next issue of "Batman" is coming, and direct market subscriptions mean all the guesswork is taken out and all a dedicated fan needs to do is show up. With the back issue market slowly being phased out with digital and TPB reprints, issue numbers aren't completely necessary to keep things organized.

In the absence of first issues, ANY issue can be a first issue; just include "FIRST ISSUE OF NEW STORYLINE!" or "IT ALL BEGINS HERE!" somewhere on the cover, something to signify to the readers that they could read this issue first without issue. If publishers want that boost that an anniversary issue brings, they can do one anytime, celebrating years in publication, any number of issues they want to say have been released of any title featuring that character, or even the anniversary of the character's creation (since not everyone was introduced in their own first issue). This could potentially make it easier for new readers to pick up comics as well, since they don't have to worry about missing over 500 issues of Iron Man. Marvel is currently doing something similar to this idea with the "Circle of Four" event in "Venom" right now, a six-part event in issues #13, 13.1-13.4, and #14. On the cover, CIRCLE OF FOUR; PART TWO is larger than the issue number. Sure, it has the ridiculous .1 numbering, but a buyer can ask for Part Two and avoid confusion over which issue is 13.1.

What if The New 52 didn't mean a bunch of new #1's and literally just a new publishing direction? Or if reboots just meant a new publishing push with new creative teams, and no renumbering? Let's get beyond this old way of doing things that doesn't hold any meaning and try something that could push the medium forward.