I stated two examples in the same post you're quoting.
And I don't think they're examples of what you're talking about. The extent to which Skye is being shoved down people's throats is debatable, the extent to which Joss Whedon is actually involved in the day to day writing process of the show at the moment is unclear, and I don't see how trying to get a character he likes into a film who would be a second female character in a predominantly male cast and failing to do so counts as unreasonable favoritism or shoving anything down anyone's throats.
I see it everywhere. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that Hank Pym is one of the most important Avengers...arguably the most important after the Big Three (Cap, Tony, Thor). Not wanting to use him is one thing, but pretending as if he isn't important is a whole different thing. His initial "beef" with Marvel for not letting him put Wasp in the first Avengers film also makes him come off as hypocritical, since Janet is apparently an important founding member but Hank isn't.
1: What exactly is he not doing that you want him to do? He's writing Avengers 2, for whatever reason Hank Pym isn't going to be in it, and he's stated publicly that he thinks you can adapt Ultron's story without Hank Pym. What's unreasonable about that?
2: I don't see the hypocrisy you're talking about. He wanted to use The Wasp in the first Avengers movie. It didn't work out. How is it then hypocritical to not use Hank Pym in Avengers 2?
Continuing what I wrote above...
Removing Ultron from Hank is like removing Hank's strongest character arc from Hank. Ultron is the reason why Hank considered himself a failure, why his marriage failed, why he always tries his best (as a way of atoning for his biggest mistake), etc. In return, Ultron himself is also heavily influenced by Hank and plays into the whole family dynamic, with Ultron considering him his father. Hank/Janet/Ultron are essentially a dysfunctional family.
With that taken away from him and his founding member status taken away and a lot of the roles he plays in the team being taken away and with him being brought in so late into the game, what reason is there to care for this Hank Pym if he's been "robbed" of everything? Will Hank fully still be who he is after all that? Will he be as interesting to watch as he would have been in the beginning, had he not lost all the previously stated things in the first place?
I don't think Hank Pym necessarily needs to be a founding Avenger to still be interesting. He can have all the same shortcomings and personality quirks that define the character without that.
As for him not being the creator of Ultron, yeah, that is a loss to the character. But I really don't see how Whedon is at fault there. The Ant Man movie kept getting delayed due to Edgar Wright's other commitments and neither Hank nor Janet could get worked into the first Avengers movie, and at this point it just wouldn't make sense from a narrative standpoint to introduce Hank Pym in Avengers 2 as Ultron's creator.
Now, one could argue that the fault lies in choosing to adapt Ultron's story when using Hank Pym in it wouldn't be possible, which is a point of view I can understand. But Ultron isn't just Hank Pym's enemy, he's an enemy to all of The Avengers, and not using him at a time and in a story where it would make narrative sense to simply because the scheduling for another character didn't work out seems silly to me. Things get changed in adaptations, that's the nature of adapting things from one media to another. I don't see what's unreasonable about that.
I won't lie that I laughed at this.
In a way, I actually agree with you. I was specifically talking about his writing on the characters he
really likes. I think Johns is good at writing his "pet characters" (Flash, Green Lantern, maybe Aquaman, and maybe one more). As in, the solo books of the characters he loves more than anything else. When it comes to any other character though...yeah. Batman especially should be kept as far away from Geoff Johns' writing as possible. Heck, further than even that.
Johns' runs on Green Lantern and Aquaman are some of the worst superhero comics I've ever read. He's not any better at writing those characters than he is at writing Batman. Honestly, I find his Batman stuff far less offensive because it's biggest crime is just being boring. His Flash comics are really the only stuff of his I like.
