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

[misslane38]

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)

Rather than addressing the arguments I have made, you have decided to dehumanize me, call me a moron, and a crappy person. These sorts of ad hominem attacks say much more about you than they do about me. They tell me that you must not have any genuine or strong rebuttal to the things I've said because the only response you can muster is childish name-calling.

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.

Um, since when is suggesting it is unhealthy for Clark to make the moves on Diana while still harboring feelings for Lois indicate that I have lost my grip with reality? Unlike you, I don't buy into the idea that anything a company does to make money is okay. It is actually possible for companies to engage in offensive marketing tactics. The fact that DC has to rely on upsetting fans to sell their new stuff is revealing about how little confidence they have in their product. It seems they don't have faith that their new storylines alone will sell books. No, instead, they have to get people talking by choosing the most offensive and incendiary marketing strategy they could devise. And they primarily do it by using its past--headlines saying Superman dumped Lois or bits calling Diana a homewrecker when Clois were merely rebooted and Lee copying For Tomorrow; that PR was bad for Lois and for Diana, but I guess that's peachy for individuals such as yourself. The company executed a cynical marketing strategy and the fact that some seem to approve of that based on adopting the kind of ends justify the means mentality Clark Kent just rejected in SM#13, or based on the fact they don't see it as offensive simply because they weren't offended as a result of getting what they want, says something about the character of those it's appealing to at the moment. Hint: that something is not good.

The further Superman is away from Lois, the more Superman he is.

Ah, I see. Instead of maturely answering the question, you have decided to avoid it. I don't think anyone serious would ever consider your definition to be an accurate description of the character. Try again.

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?

May I suggest to you actually read old trades? Because I think your recollection of the past 30 years of comics is woefully uninformed. Since I run a Lois/Clark blog on Tumblr, I've explored the entire triangle era. As I was reading those comics, I kept a record of how many times Superman had to save Lois Lane. Do you want to know what I found? Superman saved Lois an average of three times a year during the triangle era. I've sampled years of other titles and found a similar result. New 52 Superman has been more of a damsel. Perhaps before you speak, you should know what the hell you are talking about.

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

It seems your reading comprehension is seriously lacking, then. I have said nothing of the sort. Elements of myths can be constantly reinterpreted and reinvented without eliminating those elements entirely. Mythologist Joseph Campbell and Grant Morrison himself would agree based on their previous statements.

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 think you have because my point is not about keeping the Joker around for every Batman story. My point is that when Joker appears in a Batman story, fans expect him to behave within a certain set of parameters in order for them to enjoy and accept him as a true reflection of who the Joker is supposed to be. If the Joker is mischaracterized, it interferes with the narrative as a whole.

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.

What? I didn't suggest Lois wouldn't trust Clark enough to tell him what is going on with her. I said that her reaction to his criticisms (calling them "nominal") indicates to me that she believes his complaints are insignificant and silly. It is because Lois is a proud woman and Clark's friend that I would have expected her to react to Clark's criticisms by explaining herself not by ignoring and dismissing him.

It's not just about Lois Lane. It's about the whole mentality that "certain trappings" are absolute musts and that the character is defined/can't function without these repetitive things. Lois Lane is a fine character, but I don't need every Superman story to deal with the same, office soap opera stuff. It's a fresh breath of air to get out of those trappings (especially for someone like me who has been reading Superman for a while, even when the books have been mediocre).

If you'll notice, Superman #13 was filled with office soap opera stuff. I've actually seen more office soap opera in the New 52 than in the decade prior to Flashpoint. Moreover, it's not a "mentality" that myths contain core elements that must be featured in some way in retellings or variants to be considered viable interpretations instead of outliers. It's a commonly held understanding of myth that goes far beyond just me to encompass what scholars of myth and many esteemed Superman writers have said over the years.

Nah, you can do Superman stories without Lois. It's a hard pill to swallow for "traditional fans" but it doesn't defy any laws of physics.

Yeah, um, did you read the thread carefully? Because I have not been saying Lois has to be in every single Superman story. I believe Lois should always have a role in Superman comics and that her role should at the very least encompass the idea that she's an intrepid reporter who doesn't care about any risks when truth and justice are at stake. I believe the triangle-for-two should be in play on some level in Superman comics. In order to include these elements, Lois only needs quality page time not a substantial quantity of page time. In other words, you can do Superman stories without Lois, but she shouldn't be completely absent from the narrative. For example, despite the fact that she was barely featured in Kingdom Come, Lois still played her iconic role in the myth. Lois wasn't front and center in every issue of All Star Superman, but the story wouldn't be the same without her. You can do Superman stories without Lois, but how many of Superman's greatest tales avoid her altogether?

Lois could be said to be more like Robin with regards to Batman. The only difference is Robin is able to support his own title while Lois Lane can't.

Lois Lane supported her own title for years during the Silver Age. And until Lois actually does get her own title and it fails, your assessment of its viability is meaningless.

Fans of Lois are not asking her to be written better, but to be written as Clark's girlfriend. It got very obvious when Lois fans make statements like it should be Lois who leaves the planet together with Clark, not Cat.

If I have said Lois should have left with Clark instead of Cat, then it is not because I wanted them together for romantic reasons. I don't want Lois with Clark right now; he needs to grow up first. I thought Lois would have worked better than Cat because Cat's decision to leave with Clark was out of step with her characterization in the title thus far whereas standing up for journalistic integrity is more of Lois Lane's thing.

Apparently, Lois has to be swayed away by Superman's Jerry Mcguire moment and can't have a different approach to doing things.

For my part, I have not said Lois should have been swayed by Clark's speech. I'm perfectly fine with her staying at Galaxy Communications as long as she has a long-term plan to redeem it from the inside. That's the kind of "different approach" I can endorse. What I have a problem with is when Lois is written as an executive producer who seems to react to criticism of her low quality journalism with indifference. Lois's response to Clark's comments to her in Perry's office did not indicate she has a different approach to things that is consistent with the integrity I expect from her character.

[misslane38]

Yes, but one must also understand that things change with time. For better at times. Nostalgia should never hold back an idea from moving forward. Superman is still the great champion he is as he used to be. Everything else, yes including Lois, may change with stories and character progression.

You seem to be approaching this as an all or nothing proposition. For you, Superman stories cannot break with the past without totally abandoning the past. I believe in a compromise of sorts. As Grant Morrison is well-known for doing, you can bring back the past in new ways that enriches rather than detracts from creating something new and inventive. His Action run, for instance, has used Lois pretty much in a traditional way without compromising his innovative and captivating storytelling.

You also need to understand that you are not the sole arbiter of what is "better" storytelling. Just because you like a new interpretation more does not make it automatically superior to the past. There have been great stories in the New 52 and there have been terrible ones. The same holds true for the Golden Age, Silver Age, Bronze Age, and Post-Crisis era. I believe the best way to determine what works and what does not is to look at what sorts of Superman stories are the most beloved and respected. What do those stories have in common?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

Um, since when is suggesting it is unhealthy for Clark to make the moves on Diana while still harboring feelings for Lois indicate that I have lost my grip with reality? Unlike you, I don't buy into the idea that anything a company does to make money is okay. It is actually possible for companies to engage in offensive marketing tactics. The fact that DC has to rely on upsetting fans to sell their new stuff is revealing about how little confidence they have in their product. It seems they don't have faith that their new storylines alone will sell books. No, instead, they have to get people talking by choosing the most offensive and incendiary marketing strategy they could devise. And they primarily do it by using its past, like headlines saying Superman dumped Lois or bits calling Diana a homewrecker when Lois and Clark had simply been rebooted and they hadn't been together yet; that PR was bad for Lois and for Diana, but I guess that's peachy for individuals such as yourself. The company executed a cynical marketing strategy and the fact that some seem to approve of that based on adopting the kind of ends justify the means mentality Clark Kent just rejected in SM#13, or based on the fact they don't see it as offensive simply because they weren't offended as a result of getting what they want, says something about the mettle of those it's appealing to at the moment. Hint: that something is not good.

Not that I'm defending DC, but couldn't it be the media, and not DC, the ones who said that "Superman ditched Lois" or that "Diana is a homewrecker"? I mean, DC clearly stated from the beginning that this was a reboot on all its characters. It came across that it was the different media outlets that put those titles in order to attract readers, even knowing that the new52 was a total reboot. Even in several of those articles they acknowledged that.

I don't think you have because my point is not about keeping the Joker around for every Batman story. My point is that when Joker appears in a Batman story, fans expect him to behave within a certain set of parameters in order for them to enjoy and accept him as a true reflection of who the Joker is supposed to be. If the Joker is mischaracterized, it interferes with the narrative as a whole.

Yeah, it's possible. I thought we were talking about supporting characters defining other characters, which was in fact the original discussion.

What? I didn't suggest Lois wouldn't trust Clark enough to tell him what is going on with her. I said that her reaction to his criticisms (calling them "nominal") indicates to me that she believes his complaints are insignificant and silly. It is because Lois is a proud woman and Clark's friend that I would have expected her to react to Clark's criticisms by explaining herself not by ignoring and dismissing him.

*sigh* And did I suggest you suggested that? No, I think I didn't, so calm down. All I did is to point out that facet of their relationship, and that the reaction seemed natural to me, nothing more.

[Nocturnus]

For someone who had no problem with it in the GA and SA stories, right now I can very much do well without the triangle for two shenanigans. Hope DC acts accordingly.
Also you will do better if you keep your assumptions in a leash.

[misslane38]

Not that I'm defending DC, but couldn't it be the media, and not DC, the ones who said that "Superman ditched Lois" or that "Diana is a homewrecker"? I mean, DC clearly stated from the beginning that this was a reboot on all its characters. It came across that it was the different media outlets that put those titles in order to attract readers, even knowing that the new52 was a total reboot. Even in several of those articles they acknowledged that.

It was Jim Lee himself who explained in interviews that part of the goal of marketing the new "power couple" was to frame it as a break from the past -- a break from Lois. Despite saying he didn't want to copy his art from For Tomorrow in one video, he later admitted he did use his earlier image of Lois and Superman embracing as a template for his Justice League #12 cover. DC was the one solely responsible for putting Superman and Diana on the top of their Power Couples list before their kiss had even made it print. The omission of Lois and Clark on the list when Ollie and Dinah and Larfleeze and his battery made it was ridiculous and insulting. At San Diego Comic-Con before the reboot, Matt Idelson called Lois a "trophy wife." When DC announced that Lois would have a new boyfriend, they were the ones encouraging a "Team Clark" vs. "Team Jonathan" competition. DC ripped off one of the most important Lois/Clark episodes of Smallville, "Crossfire," that Geoff Johns praised by publicizing Superman and Wonder Woman's Match.com profiles. And, you know what? Ultimately, DC is responsible for managing how their product is marketed to the wider public. If Good Morning America or any additional news outlet stepped out of bounds, then that should have been an issue for the company. Why would it, though? Like I said, guys like DiDio and Lee have admitted they wanted to inflame fans to get people talking. They wanted the controversy.

Yeah, it's possible. I thought we were talking about supporting characters defining other characters, which was in fact the original discussion.

This was what I said in response to the original discussion: "Your explication of the Joker's role makes little sense to me, since it isn't the overt presence of the character that matters. What matters is how the character is used within the mythology when he or she makes an appearance. If the Joker's core character traits began to slowly erode, then that would threaten Batman mythology as a whole."

*sigh* And did I suggest you suggested that? No, I think I didn't, so calm down. All I did is to point out that facet of their relationship, and that the reaction seemed natural to me, nothing more.

I am calm. Perhaps you aren't? It is because Lois and Clark are friends that her reaction to his comments in Perry's office don't make any sense.

For someone who had no problem with it in the GA and SA stories, right now I can very much do well without the triangle for two shenanigans. Hope DC acts accordingly.

The triangle-for-two is something that can evolve with time. The triangle of the Golden and Silver Age need not be the triangle of the New 52. Smallville, for example, did the triangle in a way that had never been done before. One way the triangle could be updated for today is to make it clear to readers that Lois really does know Clark is Superman. It could be fun to play around with that angle, I think.

Also you will do better if you keep your assumptions in a leash.

Which ones? It's not an assumption that you are ignorant of Lois Lane's characterization during the past 30 years because you labeled her a damsel-in-distress when that was rarely the case. It's not an assumption that you decided to avoid seriously defining Superman in favor of providing a reactionary and snarky comeback. It is not an assumption that you believe that breaking with the past leads to better storytelling.

[nightrider]

How so? Lois' relationship with Superman and Clark Kent predates the creation of Robin.



Lois had a solo-title long before Robin did - heck, Jimmy had his own book long before Robin did. Are you saying she currently can't support her own title?

And which Robin title are you referring to currently, considering the fact there actually isn't a Robin title at the moment...




That's your 'proof' for making such an assertion? In this thread, for example, 'misslane38' has been quite clear that she's absolutely fine with the current relationship and is more than willing to wait for it become a romantic one ('upwards of ten years')...

Sure, Lois predates Robin. But Spectre also predates the creation of Robin, are you saying Spectre is more popular than Robin?
Lois had a solo ongoing back in the days called Superman's girlfriend. It was the 2nd highest selling title in DC. It was a time where comics are bought predominantly by kids and the landscape of comics then and now has changed drastically. In those days, Archie and Patsy Walker were huge hits. Fast forward now, anything that don't belong to Superhero category hardly sells anything. Few exceptions includes Walking Dead which is a horror book with a huge TV series backing it and critically acclaimed titles.

Edit: Yes I'm saying she currently can't support her own title.

Yes, Nightwing, Dick Grayson has a solo ongoing.
Red Hood is leading a team of outlaws.
Red Robin is the lead character in Teen Titans.
Batman and Robin is a top 20 book.
Prior to the reboot Red Robin is also selling at great numbers.

Everything comes down to that same factor. Theres no denying because the intentions of said shippers are clear for everyone to see despite pretending to be absolutely fine.

[nightrider]

Lois Lane supported her own title for years during the Silver Age. And until Lois actually does get her own title and it fails, your assessment of its viability is meaningless.

So? That wasn't the point of the post. Your reply is meaningless.

If I have said Lois should have left with Clark instead of Cat, then it is not because I wanted them together for romantic reasons. I don't want Lois with Clark right now; he needs to grow up first. I thought Lois would have worked better than Cat because Cat's decision to leave with Clark was out of step with her characterization in the title thus far whereas standing up for journalistic integrity is more of Lois Lane's thing.

Oh yes I'm sure.

For my part, I have not said Lois should have been swayed by Clark's speech. I'm perfectly fine with her staying at Galaxy Communications as long as she has a long-term plan to redeem it from the inside. That's the kind of "different approach" I can endorse. What I have a problem with is when Lois is written as an executive producer who seems to react to criticism of her low quality journalism with indifference. Lois's response to Clark's comments to her in Perry's office did not indicate she has a different approach to things that is consistent with the integrity I expect from her character.

I wanted to go back and search for previous posts you made, but I could not be bothered, because I know it will always be a dead end conversing with you, I've observed your post and its obvious you can't make an unbiased argument with regards to Lois Lane. I don't intend to continue wasting time. You do make a convincing argument from a shipper to other shippers.

[Nocturnus]

Yeah I couldn't care less about lois lane. Much less get a degree on her. Smallville triangle? How about NO? That was worse and dc main universe should avoid anything Smallville like the plague it is. That's why you get a SV comics. Be happy with what you get. Again, your suppositions are as obnoxious as your arguements. Spare me your lame comebacks.

[Lexrules]

Yeah I couldn't care less about lois lane. Much less get a degree on her. Smallville triangle? How about NO? That was worse and dc main universe should avoid anything Smallville like the plague it is. That's why you get a SV comics. Be happy with what you get. Again, your suppositions are as obnoxious as your arguements. Spare me your lame comebacks.

I sense much anger in you young Skywalker.

[adkal]

Sure, Lois predates Robin. But Spectre also predates the creation of Robin, are you saying Spectre is more popular than Robin?

By that statement, are you suggesting that Robin is more popular than Lois?

Lois had a solo ongoing back in the days called Superman's girlfriend. It was the 2nd highest selling title in DC. It was a time where comics are bought predominantly by kids and the landscape of comics then and now has changed drastically. In those days, Archie and Patsy Walker were huge hits. Fast forward now, anything that don't belong to Superhero category hardly sells anything. Few exceptions includes Walking Dead which is a horror book with a huge TV series backing it and critically acclaimed titles.

Ah, so you're restricting this to those who read 'mainstream Western' comic books? Understandable, I suppose, but don't you (perhaps) think that's a tad shortsighted, overall? Beyond the fiefdom that is 'American' comics, as you no doubt know, are a number of 'realms' that cater to non-superhero readers, and a significant number of the readers are female.

Edit: Yes I'm saying she currently can't support her own title.

hmm...maybe DC can put that to the test?

Yes, Nightwing, Dick Grayson has a solo ongoing.

Semantics, perhaps, but he's no longer Robin so, frankly, doesn't count, methinks.

Red Hood is leading a team of outlaws.

Not a solo-title - partial headliner, sure, but not a solo-title. Just as Batman and the Outsiders isn't/wasn't a solo-Bat-book.

Red Robin is the lead character in Teen Titans.

Not a solo-title.

Batman and Robin is a top 20 book.

Not a solo-title.

Prior to the reboot Red Robin is also selling at great numbers.

No disagreement with me there, even if I didn't like the direction the were taking him, especially post OYL

Everything comes down to that same factor. Theres no denying because the intentions of said shippers are clear for everyone to see despite pretending to be absolutely fine.

oh...kay...

[misslane38]

So? That wasn't the point of the post. Your reply is meaningless.

The point of your post was to argue that Lois, unlike Robin, cannot support a solo title. You had no basis upon which to make such a judgment. Lois Lane has not had a solo title for over 30 years, so you cannot possibly be able to claim with any certainty that a character-centric book with her name on it wouldn't sell as well as Robin-centric books.

Oh yes I'm sure.

So instead of backing up your outlandish claims about my posting history, you're just going to declare yourself correct? Okay, if you want to distort the truth with lazy and petulant responses that's your choice.

Yeah I couldn't care less about lois lane. Much less get a degree on her. Smallville triangle? How about NO? That was worse and dc main universe should avoid anything Smallville like the plague it is. That's why you get a SV comics. Be happy with what you get. Again, your suppositions are as obnoxious as your arguements. Spare me your lame comebacks.

Oh, you care about Lois. Caring doesn't mean liking. It means something stirs in you enough emotion to cause some form of reaction be it positive or negative. Your comments and engagement in this discussion about Lois suggests you do care about her quite a bit. And, if you can, please describe to me the way the triangle was handled on Smallville and how it did not live up to your standards? Remember, we're just talking about that one aspect of the show. You can take issue with other aspects of the show, and insult it overall, but I want you to examine just that one aspect of it.

And I am happy with what I get. I get awesome Lois Lane, Superman, Lex Luthor, Justice League stories in Miller's very successful Smallville: Season 11 series. I get cute and flirty Superman/Clark and Lois in Superman Family Adventures, which is introducing a whole new younger generation to their characters and dynamic. I get a HUGE blockbuster film starring one of the most famous and acclaimed actresses around this summer in Man of Steel which includes Lois being brilliant and kissing Superman. I also get the potential of things changing for the better in comics eventually. Scott Snyder and Andy Diggle certainly seem more thoughtful than Lobdell, who has been the only writer I've criticized vehemently in this thread for his character assassination of Lois Lane in Superman #13

You see, in this thread I've only criticized DC's PR as insensitive and cynical (not the writing of the stories they were promoting with said PR, although I do have minor complaints) and took issue with a few aspects of one issue of Superman written by Lobdell. Generally speaking, those criticisms seem fairly minimal, as they don't extend to Action or to every single aspect of Perez/Jurgens/Giffen's Superman. I have also repeatedly said I'm not demanding Lois and Clark be a couple right now and care more about quality than quantity when it comes to Lois Lane's character. Yet, my simply having those complaints inspires intense reaction. Consequently, whatever obsessive overreaction you seem to think I'm having about characters I've loved for decades, you're having that kind of reaction to just one fan (me) having a different opinion than you.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when the basis of their disagreement is arguing against something I've never said using strawman arguments that exaggerate and otherwise distort my position by putting words in my mouth or calling me names, instead of actually engaging with the ideas and questions I put forth, it tells me something about the weakness of my opposition. This is especially evident because, apparently, liking the New 52 and supporting Superman/Diana means being intolerant to the notion that Lois Lane not have her most iconic trait thrown under the bus from one issue (SM#12) to the next (SM#13). If you need a character to be diminished for the things you like to shine then those things didn't shine very brightly to begin with.

[Ironman2978]

@ 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)

I sense much anger in you young Skywalker.

This. People may not have liked Smallville but it had good ideas as well as took inspiration from the comics, cartoons and Donner/Singer movies, etc and did a way better job than Books like Grounded, Superman:Earth One among other books around that time before New 52) and introduced a generation of viewers a new look at the Superman universe. No different from the New 52 universe or DCAU cartoons(BTAS, STAS, JL/JLU, etc) or any other cartoon or TV show. Plus it had some good actors who made the comic book characters come to life in a way few people did before).

[Nocturnus]

If this is when you're happy then I don't want to know what happens when you are miserable.

[Auguste Dupin]

You need to take everyone into account. The older fans money is just as good as the newer fan. Sure the younger fan is the future but you need the older fan to remind them that the future was paved by those who came before. ;)

Well, the problem with the older fans is that they are often mistaking the forest for the trees.
People complaining that Superman doesn't have his red trunks anymore are just like those people who complained about Daniel Craig as James Bond because he was blonde. Those who complained that Superman wasn't married to Lois anymore are the same that those who complained that Monneypenny wasn't in the last Bond. Those who complained about Superman's new "badass" attitude are the same that those who complained about Sherlock Holmes being "Tony Stark like" (notice how in both case it was actually going back, at least partially, to how their creators imagined them).
Keeping things because they are traditions in the worst thing to do, because you are depriving them of their meaning. It's being faithful to the letter instead of being faithful to the spirit. Lois was always in danger and in need of saving because it was other times and other values. Today, having Lois always being kidnapped is basically saying she's an idiot with no concept of self survival always in need of saving from Superman. Superman's trunk is like Bond having brown hair: it's a cosmetic detail that most people probably won't care about, just like they ended up not caring about Bond's new blonde hair.
Things change, things need to keep changing, and what is kept needs to be kept for a reason, not because it's "tradition" or "the way things are". For your story to be good, to make sense, you need to have a purpose for what's in it.

[Cypher-Z]

Every time I read Austin Dupins posts the only thing he has to say is

"WELL THOSE OLD PEOPLE ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT LIKE THE CLASSIC STUFF, WHO EVEN LIKES THAT STUFF. LINES ALL OVER THE COSTUME, CLUNKY BOOTS AND ARMOR ON SOOPERMAN? WHO WOULDENT LIKE THAT? OH THATS RIGHT, THOSE OLD PEOPLE. SOOPERMAN WITH GLOWING RED EYES WHO ACTS LIKE A DOUCHE AND OUT OF CHARACTER? ONLY THOSE OLDIES WOULDENT LIKE THAT"

Every time.