Eight Things I Never Want to See in Comics Again
1. Super-Heroes referring to each other on a first-name basis while in costume.
-- Unless someone is apparently about to die, and their lover is screeching their name in terror. That's cool.
2. A major character die purely to clear the editorial decks for something that might sell better. (Lookin' at you, Flash #13.)
3. Men in super-villain costumes doing cocaine. Do you know how ridiculous that looks? At least have them take off their masks. Christ.
4. A female character getting mauled/mutilated just to piss off another male character. Alan Moore did it once, and it was okay. Everyone else has to stop now. It's getting kind of creepy.
5. "Realistic" dialogue that results in a lot of tedious panels where nothing happens. Lookin' at you, Bendis.
-- Don't give me "it's characterization" bullshit. It's not characterization unless it establishes something meaningful about the character. Bendis's dialogue frequently establishes very little due to its clipped nature. It would be fine with actors who could communicate with expressions and body language, but Bendis is rarely paired with artists able to draw on that level.
6. A scene or plotline missing from the title where it would make sense to be explored, instead shunted into a third-tier book with poor writing/art that you would only even know existed if you memorize the contents of Previews every month.
-- Bonus hate points for a scene being inserted in a comic where it makes no sense, with no editorial footnotes to explain the comic it's tying in with.
7. Weak, boring plotlines you're supposed to care about because Something Important is happening in them. Y'know, it's easier to just not read the comic and catch the inevitable synopsis to find about the Important Thing.
8. Major artists making big bucks when they can draw exactly two body types and roughly four expressions.
-- The four expressions are: :) >:O :( >:)
--- The body types are "hot woman" and "powerful guy".

BONUS: Something Comics Fans Should Never Do Again

1. React to any expression of female sexuality on a comic book cover as something that inherently denegrates the character's integrity or the character's ability to be perceived as an "ass-kicker". This is dangerous because it makes complaints about legitimately sexist garbage like the MJ statue and HFH #13 more likely to be ignored. Holy shit, people. Getting married doesn't instantly drain all the aggression out of a woman, it just makes for a fun month.
-- Corollary: You people remember Black Canary owned a flower shop once, right? Showing signs of traditional femininity should not be confused for signs of weakness. She can be married, like flowers and cakes, and still kick you in the teeth forty-three times. I mean, equating femininity with weakness equates masculinity with strength/superiority, and that's kind of self-loathing, now, isn't it ladies?
--- Actually, that's a book I'd like to read. Black Canary enjoying flowers and cakes and married life, and then beating the shit out of terrorists, that is. Include a recipe every issue and I'm there.
---- While we're at it, the implied sexuality of the Suydam parody of the Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane #1 cover isn't offensive. It's offensive that a guy has managed to build a career (or sorts) out of strip-mining cover ideas conceived by other, more talented artists. It's offensive Wizard is now paying this hack money to copy DC covers and add his crappy blurry zombie-fying treatment. I will rescind my assertion that Suydam is a hack when he draws his own god damn cover design, and it's remotely as good as the cover designs he's copied.
----- Don't bring that "it's a parody" bullshit to me, this schtick has long since become formula.