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

[Sacred Knight]

All I have left to say on this matter misslane is that I understand being upset by PR stunts or anything else the individual reader may not like. But there's being upset by something and then there's going on a verbal crusade about it like you are. I think you take it to the extreme. I think you exaggerate. I think you flip out way too easily. That's why I don't empathize with you and people who get mad about these things to the degree that you do. There's far worse things in life than being mad about a comic book direction or how your favorite character is treated. My priorities of empathy aim toward places other than fanboy gripes and people who feel jerked around by fictional tales. Likewise I expect no one to feel sorry for me when I have gripes of my own. That's where I stand. If you want to judge me some horrible person for it, well I can't help that, because when it gets to the point where I feel like my very character as a person is being judged on what I think of the treatment of Lois Lane and whether or not I pander to those upset about it, I know I need not defend myself any longer.

[misslane38]

I agree. Lois, Jimmy and Perry are important supporting characters, but in the end they are only supporting characters.

No one is arguing that Lois is more than a supporting character. What is being said is that supporting characters help define the protagonist in a story or a hero in a myth. What would Harry Potter be without Voldemort or Ron and Hermione? What would Frodo be without Sam or Gollum? By taking away key supporting characters or fundamentally altering their role in a narrative, the hero is little more than a two-dimensional concept. Characters, especially protagonists, need complementary and well-developed supporting characters to add life and layers to his or her heroic tale. These characters don't have to be prominently featured on every page or in every issue; when they do appear, however, they should be written to support the mythology of the hero in question. Mischaracterizing Lois and undermining the triangle-for-two dynamic doesn't just hurt Lois, it affects Superman mythology as a whole. Why? Because those two things have always been integral to his myth. They were there in the beginning and they have continued in various forms for 70+ years. Some change and experimentation is fine. Lois and the triangle-for-two can evolve into different forms but within reason. Nonetheless, there comes a point where drastic changes don't just rejuvenate myths but transform them into something else entirely.

All I have left to say on this matter misslane is that I understand being upset by PR stunts or anything else the individual reader may not like. But there's being upset by something and then there's going on a verbal crusade about it like you are. I just think you take it to the extreme. That's really all there is I have left to say on this matter, because tries I might to be civil I tire quickly of your judgments of me and others based on comic books.

My original complaint has not changed. What has perpetuated and inflamed this discussion following the initial expression of my complaint, or as you put it my crusade in this thread on this issue, has almost entirely been about your behavior not what DC has done. You have repeatedly said that DC intended to upset fans, but that fans who were upset were being too sensitive because we should all just accept that companies trying to make money will sometimes make mercenary marketing decisions. You refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in your statements and your lack of empathy. This isn't an issue of being upset by announcements that Clark and Diana are a couple or that Lois has a new boyfriend. There's nothing wrong with a company advertising its new stories. What's problematic is going beyond just talking up upcoming arcs, but publicizing them in a way that is specifically designed to enrage and upset fans to generate watercooler chatter.

I am judging you because you are demonstrating a serious lack of empathy. No one is asking you to feel the same feelings as upset Lois fans. What I am asking you to do is to stop characterizing me as being "too sensitive" or some permutation of that label because I am reacting to DC's marketing strategy in precisely the way DC intended for me to react. DC wanted to upset fans, and they have. Thus my feelings are not without merit and are not consistent with oversensitivity. More to the point, my "crusade" in this thread would not have continued had you not also engaged in your own "crusade" in opposition to my point of view. I did not perpetuate this conversation on my own, in other words. If I have gone too far in my crusade against you or DC, then you have gone too far in your crusade against me in order to defend DC.

Finally, I am not judging you or others on this issue based on comic books. I am judging you on this particular question on basic issues of consideration, empathy, and simple logic. Your logic is contradictory and your consideration is lacking.

[davidgrantlloyd]

@ Sacred Knight:

Well done. To have actually gone to all that trouble arguing with a donkey when you (as well as many others reading this, I'm sure) probably assumed you were always going to make more sense and be more reasonable from the start. I gave up arguing with that moron months ago ... I mean, what's the point? No wonder she (or he or them or it) is labelled "misslane" ... I guess crappy people tend to worship crappy characters ... who, at the end of the day, acheive absolutely nothing but sap all the fun out of comics (no wonder the market is shrinking)

[lariatofhestia]

Fans who are obsessive need to get a grip on reality. They are not helping their fandom. At all. They say Clark is unhealthy? He's not real. This kind of personal hurt at what a huge company is doing to make sure its property sells is mind boggling. The more I read the more ridiculous I am seeing how some fans can behave. I hope DC ignores the hell out of them and stick to their guns. The whole reboot was a god send even if to give these fans a reality smack in the head.

[Nocturnus]

@misslane38

My definition of Superman is the following:
The further Superman is away from Lois, the more Superman he is.

[Lexrules]

@misslane38

My definition of Superman is the following:
The further Superman is away from Lois, the more Superman he is.

I don't agree with that at all. Superman needs Lois and always has. The characters feed off each other. Now Lois does not need to be Married to Superman as she for more years then not wasn't but she needs to be in his life and needs to always be saved. That is a dynamic that is vital. Superman will always save Lois because that is what he does and has always done.

To change that is to change a vital nature of the character of Superman.

[Lexrules]

Fans who are obsessive need to get a grip on reality. They are not helping their fandom. At all. They say Clark is unhealthy? He's not real. This kind of personal hurt at what a huge company is doing to make sure its property sells is mind boggling. The more I read the more ridiculous I am seeing how some fans can behave. I hope DC ignores the hell out of them and stick to their guns. The whole reboot was a god send even if to give these fans a reality smack in the head.

I know what misslane is going through in a way. I feel DC hurt the character with changing the classic suit and I have gone on here to say that it is a vital part of what makes the Character Iconic. I know I don't need to worry as the classic suit will never disappear as WB has way to much invested in the classic look in Merchandise and other properties that it will return in the books most likely then not at a later date. Also you can't follow what big business does. that is the worst thing to do, you need people who will raise their voices in what they disagree with. The day you stop hearing someone not bitching and moaning is the day I would serious start worrying if we all turned into robots.

[Nocturnus]

I don't agree with that at all. Superman needs Lois and always has. The characters feed off each other. Now Lois does not need to be Married to Superman as she for more years then not wasn't but she needs to be in his life and needs to always be saved. That is a dynamic that is vital. Superman will always save Lois because that is what he does and has always done.

To change that is to change a vital nature of the character of Superman.

I'll take the change over the snoozefest that was saving the damsel in distress, in a heartbeat. I'd rather watch circus jugglers and be more entertained than read how supes saves the damsel - again- like 20 million times as he did before. No thanks. May I suggest you old trades?

[Lexrules]

I'll take the change over the snoozefest that was saving the damsel in distress, in a heartbeat. I'd rather watch circus jugglers and be more entertained than read how supes saves the damsel - again- like 20 million times as he did before. No thanks. May I suggest you old trades?

Like I said, you're looking to change the dynamics of what has and will always work. You will always see Superman saving Lois so I would get use to it. And I think I have every Superman trade ever made. How about if I suggest you one.

[Mr. Holmes]

Yeah basically I'm translating some of these posts to "Superman HAS to be doing the same boring damn things!!"

[Lexrules]

Yeah basically I'm translating some of these posts to "Superman HAS to be doing the same boring damn things!!"

No he could do new things you just need to make sure he does the same old things that worked since before we were born and will work long after were dead. It's just to be expected and you don't change what has ALWAYS worked. But sure you could tone it down as long as it is revisited from time to time.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Now that you mention it, I think he did say something along those lines ... tho the exact statement escapes me, I'll have to have a look around and see if I can find it. An all alien team could be cool and if it were worked into the Superman title, I'd check it out. Maybe it would involve characters like Maxima or something ... tho I'm not sure if the team are heroes or villains.

I'm pretty sure the characters would be heroes, as he hinted at those who appeared in the Annual. Hopefully it won't be one of those ideas he looses track of.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Batman will still be Batman, but isn't there something about his interactions with the Joker and Joker stories that seem to get at the heart of Batman mythology? But that wasn't really my point. My point was that when the Joker appears in a Batman story, I believe readers expect his characterization to fall within a certain set of parameters in order to consider the story good. That's all I am asking for here: Lois is written well when she is featured in a Superman book.

Yes, The Joker helps the writer to get to the existing core of the character. but what if the day of tomorrow they kill him off? Or create a character as creepy as The Joker? Anyway, like I said, I got your point.

I don't want Lois's natural response to legitimate criticism to be to dismissive and mean. That's childish and it's not the Lois Lane I've been reading in the past 12 issues of this title. I'm sure Lois did want to respond to Clark's concerns, but since she essentially called them trivial, I don't have high hopes that she appreciates his point of view.

Well, given that Lois is an extremely proud woman, I don't see that kind of reaction as something completely out of the equation. And assuming Clark and Lois are friends (there hasn't been anything that proves otherwise), they should have enough trust between them to tell each other things to their face.

Like I said, I'll wait and see.

[adkal]

I don't agree with that at all. Superman needs Lois and always has. The characters feed off each other. Now Lois does not need to be Married to Superman as she for more years then not wasn't but she needs to be in his life and needs to always be saved. That is a dynamic that is vital. Superman will always save Lois because that is what he does and has always done.

The underlined bits I don't consider to be absolutes.

There are dozens of stories, great stories, where Lois isn't around and isn't needed.

Having Lois move away from the recklessness she sometimes (often?) exhibited is a good thing - it's growth on her part. Would I rather she have a more hands-on approach in her new role? yes - if she was more like Kate Reed in Fairly Legal and less like Annie Walker in Covert Affairs (stubborn recklessness, self-aggrandising arrogance, and a disdain for authority has its limits and I think Kate Reed's character has it just right, personally), that's a good thing.

Superman's love for Lois isn't because she 'needs' him or he 'needs' her, but, rather, it's through an appreciation of the person she is, the drive she has and so forth.

[Mr. Holmes]

No he could do new things you just need to make sure he does the same old things that worked since before we were born and will work long after were dead. It's just to be expected and you don't change what has ALWAYS worked. But sure you could tone it down as long as it is revisited from time to time.

What defines what worked before? The fact is that Superman has not worked for newer generations. He might have endured through the eras, but that's coming to a significant slow down in the recent decades.