=======================================================

The Mike Baron / Jackson Guice series took a cue from COIE and had Wally's speed reduced to a top limit of 700 mph. That stuck until Mark Waid came on the book.

The 1990 TV series also had Barry Allen's top speed be the speed of sound.

I think for the reasons detailed elsewhere in the post to make the Flash not as invulnerable a figure as he could be seen to be.

=======================================================

William Messner Loebs was the one that really brought Wally's character / personality in to line and made him more likeable after Mike Baron portrayed him as a womaniser with a big ego and wanted monetary reward for his services.

Waid built on what Loebs had done.

For Flash, I felt the Geoff Johns/Scott Kolins era was perfect.

Could be. I did enjoy Waid's run in general and I'm not completely up to speed (pun semi-intended) with the classic Silver Age Barry version.

I did find somewhat annoying the mostly Johns-led "restoration" of Hal and Barry. Right or wrong, a decision was made to have new characters assume the Flash and GL identities and IMHO they should've committed  to the change instead of conceding to the nostalgia of this particular writer. 

If he didn't like Wally or Kyle (I wasn't crazy about him either), make them interesting or something. What if in the middle of the Silver Age someone said "Nah screw this, I miss Jay Garrick and Alan Scott let's bring them back"? 

I generally liked Morrison's approach to Superman, excess Silver Age vibes and all.

He got something fundamentally right about his personality, something that IMHO JB got too: This is the most powerful being in the world, his personality should be full of a kind of mellow super confidence. Zero angsty at all, which was an unfortunate approach more than one creator tried with Superman.

If only!

Then there's his values, and of course the no killing rule, and how much that stands apart from his war time role. I personally would approach that from the view that his brutal wartime experiences are exactly what has determined his belief in the sanctity of life. In the sense that he's so horrified by the loss of life he has seen when countries go to war.

But then how realistic is it for him to never do so in some fights? (Though should we even be worrying about it being realistic at all? These are escapist comic books after all.)

But it could be argued that Superman is an easier character to write having a no killing rule, (recent film attempts not withstanding) what with his super speed and invulnerability making it easier for him to find ways to quickly resolve a conflict without worrying so much that a stray bullet is taking him out.

But Cap has it that bit tougher and yet also has to share that burden of standing up for the whole, 'Truth, Justice and the American way' aspect. Though again the latter part of that brings it's own problems.

As a mostly DC kid growing up I always assumed there was no "no killing rule" for most Marvel characters.

Captain America is a soldier, it just seems logical that he'd kill if necessary. Plus Wolverine, Punisher, etc., I just thought that was not such a taboo in the Marvel camp.

I remember a Mark Millar anecdote when he was writing a Hulk rampage sequence in "The Ultimates" and Marvel editorial sent him a note asking "But does the Hulk kill those people?" and he answered "Yeah, sure" and the editors said "No, no, Hulk can't do that".

Millar later recalled "I've always thought the Hulk killed people all the time!" And it's exactly what I assumed as well. He's moping about in guilt all the time as Banner just because he smashed a few buildings? With the necessary suspension of disbelief for the reader that those buildings and structures and debris involved never once hit a human being fatally?

But apparently that's the way it is, I've always found it bizarre.