For example, is Tony Stark still adopted in the comics?

Is Steve Rogers still old?

Is Thor still a woman?

Is Cyclops still a bad guy (OK, bad example)

I think it's hard to argue that it wouldn't make sense to align release schedules to coincide with TV and movie pushes.

I don't agree that the comics should be 'all about the TV and movies' though it would make sense for the two products to align to the extent that they are both recognisably about the same characters.

There's a third point, of course, which requires them to go beyond aligning schedules and getting the actual books out in front of the masses. To attract the casual reader, the books need to be sold where someone is going to stumble across it in the course of shopping for something else.

2nd-others saying how long it was scared me into reading headings and the odd sentence.

now, to make $$$, i agree - line up with movies & tv

to get me as a comic book reader again: don't

or, what's wrong with going both ways?

i.e.

"Superman" - aligns to tv/movies (i won't buy - tv/movie fans will)

"Action Comics" - Superman stories by selected creative teams (i probably will buy,tv/movie fans may/may not)

etc, etc, etc for all characters/teams: 2 comics, 1 aligns, 1 doesn't

they do NOT have to be identical (superman & lois lane can be married in one, and not the other), aligning to tv/movies is basically a mish mosh of all that has been and is marketable - but you need the creative side that will be the basis off future tv/movies.

--------------------------------

You do, but are comics going to actually provide that? Or will they instead provide a genius blueprint of stunts such as killing off characters, resurrecting dead characters, putting supporting characters in the hero's costume and reboots?

A comic such as "The Adventures of Superboy," based upon the Salkinds produced syndicated TV series is hampered by the constant fact that it is not the TV series itself. The likenesses are off. The characterization isn't right. Stacy Haduik's Lana is nothing like this Lana, and so forth. Doing comic knock-offs of TV properties immediately and always makes you "less than." Plus, just go ahead and try to do a character the show hasn't done yet, like J. Wilbur Wolfingham for instance. When the show gets around to doing him, your's is just wrong. Again. 

Comic book continuations of dead series like Smallville Season Ten and the ongoing Buffy seasons don't attract audiences in anything near the numbers the shows did, and the difference in medium isn't the only factor. The comics don't have the actors, the performances, the special effects, the timing, the viewing experience... They've got next to nothing viewers might associate with their favorite programs except the tenuous claim to be the same story taken forward. Even that seems dubious when those stories now suddenly involve "tights and flights" and gigantic god-beings stomping around everywhere. They're cute little tchotchke reminders of something you used to enjoy, quaint and all too often tedious in comparison.

So, yes, by all means, turn your entire product line into pale copies of the shows and films that originally got their spark and cache from you. Twist your creative efforts in upon themselves to mirror what's currently popular and watch how quickly "currently popular" becomes "last year's model." Triple the list of ways your comic can go wrong in the eyes of potential readers by adding likeness problems and storyline discrepancies. 

Hey, it's not like those readers are going to show up anyway.