Yeah but remember these movies can't make the super bucks if it ONLY caters to super comic fans. There can be fan service along with normal action fare.
I have a different take on it... With all the comparisons, I cringe to use Marvel as an example, but it works. Iron Man. Billionaire weapons manufacturer. Check. Critically injured by a regional warlord using his own weapons against him. Check. With the help of a learned man named Yinsin, Tony manages to use his genius to cobble together a means to keep himself alive, but ties it in with a means to also escape. Check. Tony now sees it as his mission to atone for his past shortsightedness, but he's still a self-absorbed sensualist. Check. Tony has assistants named, alliteratively, Happy Hogan and Pepper Potts. Check. Tony has a trusted (African-American) friend in the military named James "Rhodey" Rhodes. Check. Tony isn't satisfied with the armored suit he made, and constantly tinkers to upgrade and try out specific ideas. Check. Tony has a valet named Jarvis. Check. Tony struggles with alcoholism. Check.
And so on. Yes, a lot of details are changed. Tony was injured in Afghanistan rather than Southeast Asia. The tech is more advanced. Et cetera. But that just keeps it relevant, rather than being a period piece. The makers ticked all the required boxes, plus most of the optional ones, for Tony Stark's character and arc, because it worked. Yes, longtime fans will (and do) see familiar things from the comics in there, but it all stands on its own as part of the character and his story. There aren't moments of casual fans going "Wait, what's up with that?" as the makers focus on something from the comics that they dropped in as a nod but that isn't relevant to the story at hand. That's not fan service. That's recognizing what made the character popular in the first place and incorporating it into a new iteration/manifestation. You can change up a lot -- even ethnicity or gender -- but the essential core of what makes, say, Green Lantern... Green Lantern... needs to be kept and respected. Good filmmaking, when it involves a long-established I.P., uses the extant lore to draw from. When done right, this makes a movie or movies that new viewers can be engaged by just as potential readers were decades earlier. And at the same time, existing fans will recognize the character they've liked for however long.
Notice I said "when done right". This is where DC's filmmakers have struggled for... well... longer than I like to say. I honestly feel things started going in curious directions after Superman 2. Burton's vision for Batman was engaging, but a definite departure (his vision for Catwoman moreso). Batman Forever broke with the series' own canon by switching Harvey Dent from Billy Dee Williams to Tommy Lee Jones. Batman & Robin had such potential and squandered it in a Schumacherian weird-fest. Superman Returns was a lovely homage to the original two, but should have been two films. I am sad Routh never really got a chance to keep going and gradually tweak his performance from echoing Reeve to making the role his own. The Nolan Batman trilogy did a good job of steering that character back toward where he should be, but still made missteps. Green Lantern was... well, just flat-out mishandled.
Zack Snyder deserves his own paragraph. He did a decent job on 300 and less so on Watchmen (inexplicable drastic alteration to the ending), but that's because they were adaptations for specific self-contained stories, and, effectively, storyboards that he followed. Distilling the better part of a century of material down to Man of Steel? Not so much. The beginning was wonderful, and I would love to have seen all that as a "Last Days of Krypton" series (one or two seasons, ish). Too much of the rest of the film bogged down in un-thought-through/unclarified motivation for the villain, and a lot of Snyderian undercrank/overcrank/undercrank destruction porn. As with BvS, there was a good story in there, struggling to get out through the rubble.
Everything about SS seems more of the same. Ready fire aim. A notion, they pick some characters -- seeming more for audience recognition than suitability to the story, then an attempt to make it all work. Questionable motivations, questionable casting, questionable costuming, questionable just about everything. With that approach, the things that work are more from random chance than intentional design. To reference something slightly upthread, maybe cast someone who's from or lived in New York long enough to know the accent for realz. Hell, I'd love to see them cast Arleen Sorkin as Harley, and use the increasingly-good de-aging computer mojo a la Michael Douglas in Ant-Man. Not only was she the voice in the animated series, but take a few years off and I think she looks the part, too:
But she'd still have to have a reason to be there. Suicide Squad the comic has had a pretty variable cast over the years. The filmmakers' tendency over the last several years has been to look over the cumulative history of the titles, shrug, and throw a few of the most familiar elements into the movies with no rhyme or reason. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand why they're having so much trouble finding writers and directors who can convey a good, compelling story with good, compelling characters. They're out there, looking for work. Some of them even work for DC already.
--Jonah