LBCC: Lobdell Promises Radical Changes for "Superman," "Teen Titans" & "Red Hood"

[Nocturnus]

@misslane

Except your behaviour isn't very typical fan reaction. It's borderline obsessive. You ask if the mistreatment of Supes would upset me? It did. I was pretty damn upset for the pasf 20 or so years. But I wasn't on a mission to ruin it for everyone else.

[misslane38]

Lois has been a significant part of Superman's mythology, sure, but I disagree about her character defining Superman. Superman is defined by his origin and his upbringing, the values he holds dear and his will to defend them, and his ability to do the impossible, including his god-like powers.

Superman is defined by his mythology, which includes his supporting cast. The Lois/Clark relationship, especially the triangle-for-two, has been a core element of Superman's mythology for 75 years. What would Batman be without the Joker, for example?

Likewise, if your explanation on the Lois "character assassination" is based on what you saw in *ONE* issue (and we're talking about Lobdell's run here), then your argument is just as weak.

No it is not. Lois's behavior in Superman #13 happened, and it was directly at odds with her characterization in the 12 issues prior. Lois would not permit Snookie-like stories to air, she would not allow her reporters to lob softball questions at the White House, and she would not respond to any legitimate criticisms of those decisions by labeling them "nominal."

And I'm not making baseless guesses, I'm just saying that we should wait and see before passing judgements because none of us know what Lobdell has planned for Lois.

When you say "no one knows what Lobdell has planned" and yet insist you are not making baseless guesses, it is obvious you continue to miss the point. I'm criticizing Lodbell based on what he has done already, which is to write Lois as a journalist who would allow substandard reporting to make it to air.

I fail to see the "potential contradiction" you are pointing out, especially after reading what you said about "quality, not quantity": Yeah, Lois and Jimmy barely appeared in Superman #13, but that doesn't mean their roles are being downsized. They do NOT have to have substantial appearances in every issue. After all, they're supporting characters.

Again, I'm not asking for Lois to have substantial appearances in every issue. Nonetheless, if she is going to get as little page time as she did in Superman #13, it should be quality page time instead of character assassination.

It's just funny to me, that you talk about Lois and "character assassination," when it's your posts that kill any interest I would have in the character. I guess at this point, it would be better for Lobdell to write her out, completely.

It is funny to me that you keep insisting I am the one who is overreacting when you are saying that the only reason you want Lois written out is because of what one fan is saying on a comic book message board.

Complain and play the Lois-Fan Victim all you like, that's your right.

I am offering specific criticism of one aspect of Lois's characterization in Superman #13, and I am calling out DC for its mercenary PR machine. Because I am speaking out I am do not see myself as a victim. I believe there is power in speech. Your demand that Lois be written out of Superman books because of my criticisms sounds a good deal more like playing the victim.

Except your behaviour isn't very typical fan reaction. It's borderline obsessive.

How is my reaction obsessive? I am unhappy with Lois Lane's characterization in Superman #13. I explain the reasons for my criticism. There is nothing obsessive about that sort of behavior.

You ask if the mistreatment of Supes would upset me? It did. I was pretty damn upset for the pasf 20 or so years. But I wasn't on a mission to ruin it for everyone else.

How is one person criticizing the writing of one character in one issue of a comic book akin to ruining for everyone else? How sensitive do you have to be to allow one fan's complaints to ruin your enjoyment of something you profess to love?

[Lexrules]

I love these moments in the life of a forum, where any pretense of talking about the thread just disapear and that's left is two posters going at each other.
It's like watching a car crash. You know it's going to end badly, but there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Good thing I've never been in any of these.

BTW. Where's my buddy space_butler?

I miss you man...

[Auguste Dupin]

Good thing I've never been in any of these.

BTW. Where's my buddy space_butler?

I miss you man...

Well, you see there was this car crash and.....
The important thing is that there was nothing I could have done.

[adkal]

@misslane

Except your behaviour isn't very typical fan reaction.

Based on what I've seen on Twitter, it's quite 'typical'. There are quite a lot of people out there (in the Twitterverse) who are not best pleased with the way Lois has been sidelined, subverted, downplayed, etc.

[Lexrules]

Well, you see there was this car crash and.....
The important thing is that there was nothing I could have done.

Hey, You did what you could. The fact you saved the hot chick with the big boobs over space_butler is understandable.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Superman is defined by his mythology, which includes his supporting cast. The Lois/Clark relationship, especially the triangle-for-two, has been a core element of Superman's mythology for 75 years. What would Batman be without the Joker, for example?

Superman, the character, is not defined by other characters. If anything, they help convey what the character is about, which is different. It is my understanding that before "Death In The Family" The Joker had not appeared in a Batbook in a year. Did that make Batman any less Batman? No. Does The Joker help understand the audience what Batman is about, what he fights against? Yes.

No it is not. Lois's behavior in Superman #13 happened, and it was directly at odds with her characterization in the 12 issues prior. Lois would not permit Snookie-like stories to air, she would not allow her reporters to lob softball questions at the White House, and she would not respond to any legitimate criticisms of those decisions by labeling them "nominal."

Again, too early to judge. Remember Clark left the scene before Lois had any chance to respond to those criticisms.

When you say "no one knows what Lobdell has planned" and yet insist you are not making baseless guesses, it is obvious you continue to miss the point. I'm criticizing Lodbell based on what he has done already, which is to write Lois as a journalist who would allow substandard reporting to make it to air.

I got your point just fine. By saying the same over and over again, it is obvious you're missing mine. What Lobdell "has done already" consists of a few panels showing Lois in one issue. I also said that we don't know what Lobdell has planned, hence my "too early to judge" comment. We didn't see Lois' reactions to Clark's criticisms. It's not that she didn't respond, it's that Clark left the room before she could, which is different. That little page time didn't give us the chance to know how Lois felt about those comments (besides being obviously offended by them).

Again, I'm not asking for Lois to have substantial appearances in every issue. Nonetheless, if she is going to get as little page time as she did in Superman #13, it should be quality page time instead of character assassination.

Agree on the quality, disagree on the character assassination. Now, if I see that what you say are her "true" colors (through a certain number of appearances, making her behavior somewhat "consistent" in the current continuity and without getting a clue that she might have other intentions or whatever), then I'll get worried.

[Auguste Dupin]

Hey, You did what you could. The fact you saved the hot chick with the big boobs over space_butler is understandable.

Well, actually, I saved the cat.
I really hate violence inflicted upon animals.

[Namtab]

It is funny to me that you keep insisting I am the one who is overreacting when you are saying that the only reason you want Lois written out is because of what one fan is saying on a comic book message board.

I can take her or leave her, because I understand that, as a support character, she's not vital to every story, and she exists solely to be part of Superman's world -- when she's needed.

I am offering specific criticism of one aspect of Lois's characterization in Superman #13, and I am calling out DC for its mercenary PR machine. Because I am speaking out I am do not see myself as a victim. I believe there is power in speech. Your demand that Lois be written out of Superman books because of my criticisms sounds a good deal more like playing the victim.

Yes. You're upset about Lois' portrayal in one issue of one book. Different writers will, of course, write the character differently. Getting upset over one issue makes you sound like a victim, whether you see it or not.

[Lexrules]

Well, actually, I saved the cat.
I really hate violence inflicted upon animals.

Cool.. Can I have the chick with the big boobs then?

[Auguste Dupin]

Cool.. Can I have the chick with the big boobs then?

You can have what's left of it.
A bit of advice: you can keep her on your fridge, but not on her boyfriend's. They don't like it for some reason.

[adkal]

Agree on the quality, disagree on the character assassination. Now, if I see that what you say are her "true" colors (through a certain number of appearances, making her behavior somewhat "consistent" in the current continuity and without getting a clue that she might have other intentions or whatever), then I'll get worried.

I'm willing to wait it out...

I can take her or leave her, because I understand that, as a support character, she's not vital to every story, and she exists solely to be part of Superman's world -- when she's needed.

Yet, when she is brought in, don't you think she should be portrayed 'properly'? For example, one of the complaints many had about Batman issue 13 was Gordon's portrayal, that it was out of character and done in a way to play up the horror-movie-vibe of the issue. It's the same thing here.

Yes. You're upset about Lois' portrayal in one issue of one book. Different writers will, of course, write the character differently. Getting upset over one issue makes you sound like a victim, whether you see it or not.

The complaints from Lois fans have been present for over a year - whilst there's a strong portrayal of her in Morrison's work, the 'modern' Lois isn't 'there', and since there have been more than two writers working on the Superman title, Lois fans have already have 'different writers...writ[ing] the character differently'.

[Namtab]

Yet, when she is brought in, don't you think she should be portrayed 'properly'? For example, one of the complaints many had about Batman issue 13 was Gordon's portrayal, that it was out of character and done in a way to play up the horror-movie-vibe of the issue. It's the same thing here.

But she is written properly. You and misslane may not think so, but Lobdell and DC seems to think it's right, since it's right there, published in SUPERMAN.

The complaints from Lois fans have been present for over a year - whilst there's a strong portrayal of her in Morrison's work, the 'modern' Lois isn't 'there', and since there have been more than two writers working on the Superman title, Lois fans have already have 'different writers...writ[ing] the character differently'.

I don't know what to tell you if you think your wants and desires really comes above everything else. These Lois fans can continue to complain, if they want, but they might be happier just reading something else until the "right" writer comes along and makes Lois into everything they want and desire.

[Lexrules]

You can have what's left of it.
A bit of advice: you can keep her on your fridge, but not on her boyfriend's. They don't like it for some reason.

Words of Wisdom from a Super Genius.

[Auguste Dupin]

Words of Wisdom from a Super Genius.

You're too kind, but it's just the experience talki.......huh, yeah, forget about that.