Frank Miller's adaptation of The Spirit into a feature film left a lot of Hollywood executives with a bad taste in their mouth. Need proof? The fact that they need to attach Seth Rogen to a project like the Green Hornet should be proof enough. Now, I'm not saying that this film is going to be bad. In fact, I am extremely excited for this film, because I think if anyone could add actual buddy-buddy dynamics to the Green Hornet and Kato, it's Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg who built their career off of it (Superbad, Pineapple Express, Seth Rogen's Jay and Seth Vs. The Apocalypse). But Hollywood knows that with a name like Seth Rogen, you're attracting one of your biggest demographics - teenagers - to a movie that otherwise wouldn't appeal to them (the generation of 1990 has no clue who The Green Hornet is). On the other side, the comic book movies that are constantly getting optioned are not indy-joints, or old school, but they're BIG NAMES. Spiderman 4, the new Batman, the new Iron Man, a Venom movie, a new X-Men and Superman (I'm assuming), a potential Deadpool movie (with Ryan Reynolds attached), the recent Watchmen movie and a possible Green Lantern (with Ryan Reynolds attached too...) and Wonder Woman movie - the results are in - the heavy hitters have it. But does that mean that the more independent/old(golden age)/less-well-known comics are out of the movie hunt? Yes and no.
 
Here's the NO:
If you're crossing your fingers for a Martian Manhunter movie, I'd stop. Because I don't think it's going to happen. Why? There's not a high enough return for the needed budget. The basic idea of Martian Manhunter is very high cost. The effects needed to give justice to Martian Manhunter is probably around a 200 million dollar movie - especially if a "normal" producer and director are attached to it, instead of, say, JJ Abrams, who orchestrated Cloverfield for 25 million in which he made about 7.5 times that at the box office . If a normal producer took the Cloverfield project on (say like the one who took on Godzilla, remember that movie? Yeah...), he wouldn't of even made 2 times it back. You see the problem that Hollywood has optioning big budget superhero movies? As referenced in the opening sentence, The Spirit didn't even make it's money back. Unless Hollywood is sure that they're going to make a positive return, they gain nothing by throwing these superhero movies out. In fact, some could even argue, a high level (quantity-wise) of superhero movies a year, diminishes the value of the blockbuster superhero movies. For instance, if there are 13 superhero movies in 2014 and 3 of them are huge blockbusters (a la TDK, Spiderman 2), you have to think that unless you receive the 3 blockbusters relatively early in the year, that the other superhero movies might whet your appetite for spandex a little too much. Of course those with their heart set will see anything, but 
unless the movie gets great reviews, the casual movie watchers will probably rather see something else. Potentially draining - oh, let's say, 70 - 200 million from the box office (this is a pure guesstimate). So we see here, that these lesser superheroes are probably not going to make it onto the silver screen. But then again, if comics have taught us anything, it's that, "if there's a will, there's a way..."
 
Here's the YES:
Who says superhero movies have to cost 100-300 million dollars? Do you know what they made Zombieland for? 23 million. Already it's 8 million ahead in the box office and will continue to grow. Attribute this to Woody Harrelson's star power, the zany idea, or humanity's love of zombies - but the fact is by a business standard, it's considered a success, bottom line. I bet you know where I'm going with this. Some superheroes, especially the ones who lack powers (heroes usually based off the early pulps) or those who specifically only utilize one relatively inexpensive power (like even a guy like Iron Fist or Luke Cage for a possibly cheap 100 million compared to other well known characters), could possibly see a strong emergence movies options. My belief are that characters like the Green Hornet, the Sandman (maybe that's hopeful wishing), the original Crimson Avenger (although different than the Green Hornet), the Shadow, and others will be able to be optioned by Hollywood studios, and when they can raise between 20-50 million, possibly attach a well know actor - the comic-movie business will be booming on all cylinders. The major flaw with The Spirit wasn't that it was about The Spirit, it's that it cost them 53 million when actuality it should've cost them 30 million. 
 
Overall I think that unless superhero movies start worrying about budget, us comic book fans are going to have to get used to the big comic book names in cinema. Because that's all we're going to get.

Doctor Doom, in my opinion, is best perceived simply as Doom. The idea that Doctor Doom longs for a lost love is stupid. Do we like Darth Vader more because of the trials of love Anakin Skywalker faced? No. The consensus is no. So why, in these graphic novel interpretations of DOOM do writers try to make him some in love character? I get it, you're trying to make the Evil Doctor seem a little more relatable to your average comic book fan - but giving him a love interest (even if she can be traced all the way back to the 60's) is not the way to do it. It's lazy. It's unoriginal. In my mind, if Doom is ready to swoon over a chick, how the hell does he stay stone face while SUFFOCATING THE FANTASTIC FOUR ALIVE? You get what I'm saying? Usually someone THAT lovestruck will be willing to find the greater humanity in almost everything. But I guess not Doom... 
 
I'm not a comic book writer. But what the hell. If I were to do it, I would focus on something else about Doom's life to link him to his general audience. Maybe the fact that he grew up a loner in his gypsy tribe, constantly harassed by outside forces and that continued to grow up a loner in America - but this time, also, foreign. Or you can take it from a completely different point of view. Maybe Doom never got his mother's approval and his father could care less about the both of him? Maybe Doom's origin could be based on him seeking his mother's approval, twisted throughout the years. Or we could go with the classical, Napoleonic idea of power. The elegant, "My nation needs fixing and I will guide them through the process." Insert (and beyond) at the end of that quote. 
 
The bottom line is, this constant idea that a superhero (or "likable" supervillain) should have a love interest (at one point or another) to connect with the audience is bull. No comic book fan goes into a story looking for love. We like to think we have our own lives and Playboy for that. What we comic book fans enjoy is originality, fresh and with deep meaning. Very quickly said: you track the history of comic books and you can see that ever since the 80's, there has been a growing demand for meaningful social pieces. Stuff we can relate to. Why else would we see this comic book movie boom in the early 90's and now? The only reason it didn't continue THROUGH the 90's TO now, is simply because Batman & Robin and Spawn and others sucked dick and weren't able to capture what we love. Like comic books itself, it went from the glorious 40's to the ridiculous 60's-70's. I mean, nipples on the suits (Batman & Robin)? Sounds a little hippie gay to me. Definitely not DOOM-worthy.