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

[Neutrino]

And you earned every bit of it ;)

The fact is that you do the exact same thing, just in a slightly different manner. You over analyze and critisize whoever doesn't share your view. If somebody likes something you don't, you go about attempting to systematically devalue their opinion, as if it is somehow inferior to yours. For that alone, you deserve to cop some childish name-calling (at the very least). You accuse writers who don't bow to your personal (and, yes, immature, you reek of that as well, you know) fan demands as being guilty of "character assasination" when it's perfectly obvious that the only git around here who is guilty of "character assasination" is YOU. How so? Because you are completely opposed to any kind of change and development that goes outside the boundaries of your personal opinion. It seems that you would rather see the Superman mythology stagnate into complete insignificance by rehashing the same wishy washy pre New 52 rubbish, than try out different approaches, characterisations to reach a larger audience and fanbase. So you're not only a character assasin and a hypocrite, but you're contributing to the holding back of Superman's potential for conceptual growth, mythological growth and popularity growth ...

Therefore, I don't have to "dehumanize" you, you're doing a top job of that yourself. Douche ;)

As far as the "moron" remark is concerned, if I recall correctly, you once on this very thread assimilated removing Lois from the Superman mythology to removing The Joker from the Batman mythology. Since one is an arch nemesis and the other is a love interest, I would argue that that was a pretty moronic comparison of you to make ... so (pardon the cliche) if the shoe fits then wear it, you moron.

Lastly, I'd rather have my bouts of alleged immaturity any day than be a complete snob like you. You think you have a monopoly on these characters mythology? You think they belong to you alone? How dare you try to belittle writers, artists and fans just because they have different opinions to yours ... and then have the audacity to try and claim some idiotic moral high ground by painting yourself as some kind of self-appointed, all-knowing judge and jury on this subject. Get over yourself. The Superman mythology is bigger than you -- tho maybe not quite as big as your pathetic ego.

For a Superman fan, you really don't act anything like your hero. You should take a look at yourself, and your values, and decide what's gone wrong to make you spew so much bile at somebody you've never met over their opinions of Lois Lane.

For all your accusations, and they are many, I'd like to see you provide any quotes to support them. misslane38 has been nothing but genial. Unlike you, she presents her opinions with intelligence and respect. She hasn't made a personal attack in any post that I've seen.

You really ought to be banned for this tirade. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has reprimanded you yet.

[kylesgirl]

Don't knock em til you've tried em. Yes there is a ton of Lois trying to trick Superman into marrying her, but it plays out as a battle of wits. There are a ton of Lois getting her scoop stories as well. Or Lois traveling back in time to get with Jor-El. Or monsters falling in love with her. Let's face it, her life rocked. Hot men throwing themselves at her, a celebrity and it's never boring. It was a different time though. She did outsell Wonder Woman.

Your argument is moot. I am talking about a Lois comic without the trappings of Superman...and seeing her carry it for a significant time by HERSELF. WW on the other hand is still selling comics alone and not because of her love interest either. Like her or dislike her, she sells a ton of merchandise too and kind of has earned her place moneywise at DC comics because she is Wonder Woman and not Diana and Steve . Not for a dollar and ten Caspers do those comics interest me.

[kylesgirl]

For a Superman fan, you really don't act anything like your hero. You should take a look at yourself, and your values, and decide what's gone wrong to make you spew so much bile at somebody you've never met over their opinions of Lois Lane.

For all your accusations, and they are many, I'd like to see you provide any quotes to support them. misslane38 has been nothing but genial. Unlike you, she presents her opinions with intelligence and respect. She hasn't made a personal attack in any post that I've seen.

You really ought to be banned for this tirade. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has reprimanded you yet.

Misslane has not been that innocent during her posting history either. Go back as far as the reboot and you'll see her...I say she because she claims to be a she... in her condescending glory and she tends to derail tons of threads here and speak down to many people. Even the most easy going posters get sick and tired of this. And telling people they are lacking in comprehension and insensitive etc and twisting other people's works ...I forget the name she called you fanboys last here...it was no better than moron. She needs to take just as much responsibility as others as well. A good message board is where everyone treats each other with respect. You have to give respect to earn respect. I would say the reaction you see here is what she has gotten for her attitude and the way she tries to suffocate others by spamming them and twisting topics into Lois. This topic is supposed to be about Scott Lobdell and the changes in the Super books. Once again.DERAILED.

[robenson]

She did outsell Wonder Woman.

Please share figures from a reputable source to support such claim. Once you do, I will offer my own view as to why this even came close to happening and it might have something to do with "girlfriend of Superman" in its title.

[robenson]

For a Superman fan, you really don't act anything like your hero. You should take a look at yourself, and your values, and decide what's gone wrong to make you spew so much bile at somebody you've never met over their opinions of Lois Lane.

For all your accusations, and they are many, I'd like to see you provide any quotes to support them. misslane38 has been nothing but genial. Unlike you, she presents her opinions with intelligence and respect. She hasn't made a personal attack in any post that I've seen.

You really ought to be banned for this tirade. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has reprimanded you yet.

I feel the need to point something out. If something like this happens more than once with different posters, at some point, you have to ask yourself: What part did I play in this? Is there any lesson to be learned that I may apply in my posts so that others can see my approach simply as an opposing view? Playing the "victim" card once the heat is on does not help. If anything it encourages a lack of growth and improvement in oneself.

[Neutrino]

I feel the need to point something out. If something like this happens more than once with different posters, at some point, you have to ask yourself: What part did I play in this? Is there any lesson to be learned that I may apply in my posts so that others can see my approach simply as an opposing view? Playing the "victim" card once the heat is on does not help. If anything it encourages a lack of growth and improvement in oneself.

Wow. So profound. Can you be my life coach?

[davidgrantlloyd]

For a Superman fan, you really don't act anything like your hero. You should take a look at yourself, and your values, and decide what's gone wrong to make you spew so much bile at somebody you've never met over their opinions of Lois Lane.

For all your accusations, and they are many, I'd like to see you provide any quotes to support them. misslane38 has been nothing but genial. Unlike you, she presents her opinions with intelligence and respect. She hasn't made a personal attack in any post that I've seen.

You really ought to be banned for this tirade. I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has reprimanded you yet.

If you read over the posts misslane38 has made on this thread (and various other threads and websites) you'll notice she has constantly labelled other people's opinions as "meaningless" and "shallow", she accuses people of "not understanding what (they're) talking about", of being "selfish", etc ... these are just to name a few (and all they did was express their opinion which didn't coincide with hers) ... you can look them up for yourself, rest assured they're there. The bottom line is: she does go to unnecessary lengths just to belittle someone else's opinion.

She even accused the new creative team of Superman as being "character assassins" -- that's a disgusting claim to make, and you say she's "been nothing but genial"? Get serious. You say she "presents her opinions with intelligence and respect"? How is accusing a professional creative team on a comic of "character assassination" in any way respectful? How is labelling other fans opinions as "shallow" in any way respectful? Putting such negative labels like these on fans and creative teams can only imply she has an over-inflated sense of her opinion ... and it's certainly inviting an insult or two.

When she claims other fans opinions as "meaningless" what does that say to you? It says to me she has complete disregard for the way other fans view these characters, that clearly infers that she thinks she has a monopoly on these characters and only she knows what's best for them. That's incredibly disrespectful ... so as a response I showed her some disrespect. 2 wrongs don't necessarily make a right but if you constantly play with fire, sometimes you're gonna get burned.

As far as "heroics" are concerned and my "values", etc, when I see someone pushing someone else around -- and usually that's exactly what I see when misslane38 denigrates another fan's opinion -- I sometimes can't help myself but step in and call them out for what they are. That's all I've really done here. Yes I was being deliberately disrespectful, so, in other words, I was just giving her a dose of her own medicine. Therefore, my values are fine. What about yours? If you're endorsing some of the absurd, aforementioned claims misslane38 has made, long before I lost my temper, maybe you should check your own.

Yes. Some of things I said were abusive, and always intended to be so. I did this because what misslane38 often does to other fans is a form of abuse too. It's called passive aggression. It's one thing to state your opinion, it's one thing to show enthusiastic support for concepts you like ... but it's another thing altogether to go to elaborate lengths with excessive quoting, and deliberate misrepresentation, to devalue another fan's support for a different concept (while wrapping it up and presenting it with a pretentious attitude). In fact, that type of abuse, I believe, is far more insidious and mean-spirited than a bit of mere schoolyard name-calling.

I'm not necessarily proud that I lost my temper. But I stand by everything I said 100%. And I make no apologies. People who disrespect other people’s opinions (and artistic output), especially while suggesting that theirs is somehow superior, is something that tends to set me off from time to time. I know I know, as I said earlier, 2 wrongs don't make a right ... but that's why I did what I did.

On a further note, if I recall correctly, on a Superman fansite about 2 months ago (when JL #12) first came out, there was a poll asking for fans reaction to "that kiss", the majority, as I recall, were in favour of it. misslane38 responded by posting on the site that the poll conducted was, you guessed it, "meaningless", to imply that all those fans who voted had no meaning, merit, significance, etc IS disrespectful and pompous.

No fan's view is "meaningless" or "shallow", regardless of whether they're traditionalists, progressives or experimentalists. And no creative team deserves to be accused of "character assassination" for the same reasons. These fictional characters belong to all of us Respect and disrespect is a two way street.

[misslane38]

If you read over the posts misslane38 has made on this thread (and various other threads and websites) you'll notice she has constantly labelled other people's opinions as "meaningless" and "shallow", she accuses people of "not understanding what (they're) talking about", of being "selfish", etc ... these are just to name a few (and all they did was express their opinion which didn't coincide with hers) ... you can look them up for yourself, rest assured they're there. The bottom line is: she does go to unnecessary lengths just to belittle someone else's opinion.

She even accused the new creative team of Superman as being "character assassins" -- that's a disgusting claim to make.

It is a shallow argument to say that Superman and Wonder Woman should be together because of the belief they can have sex or to only describe Superman and Wonder Woman as equals both by only evaluating compatibility based on superficial attributes like physical powers. Sometimes labels fit, like character assassination. What Lobdell did to Lois in Superman #13 was character assassination. That is not an attack on Lobdell as a person, but as a writer. As customers anyone is capable of critiquing a person's product. An actor's performance can be criticized, for example, as can a politician's effectiveness. Lobdell is a professional who was given a job to do, and I am allowed to call a spade a spade, which in this case means calling a character assassin a character assassin, because that is the truth presently. Lobdell took a Lois Lane who had been written as standing up to Morgan Edge in Superman #12 and turned her into the kind of sell out Clark Kent despised so much he had to leave his job. This is Lois Lane who is beloved and seen as a role model by many because of her status as an intrepid reporter with integrity. Lobdell threw all of that in the trash in the latest issue, and considering her challenging Edge was essentially her entire arc from Superman #1-#12 that means he also regressed a whole year of her character development in the Superman books putting her back at square one. I do not have to respect that. As Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show once said, "I’m not going to censor myself to comfort [anyone's] ignorance."

Plus, get off your high horse about belittling people's opinions and look in the mirror. You do remember that you said this to me just recently, correct? "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)." You're a hypocrite.

No fan's view is "meaningless" or "shallow", regardless of whether they're traditionalists, progressives or experimentalists. And no creative team deserves to be accused of "character assassination" for the same reasons. These fictional characters belong to all of us Respect and disrespect is a two way street.

I said the poll was meaningless as an accurate gauge of public opinion since it was not put to the rigorous standards of typical polling, like the kind done by Pew, Ipsos/Reuters, and the like. I also made that statement because the poll wasn't publicized whereas the one on another site was, and that one showed a different result. Moreover, the poll creator's only defense to my criticism was to say that since the poll wasn't publicized pro-SM/WW and pro-SM/LL fans had an equal opportunity to vote as visitors to the site that would have mostly likely seen it on its sidebar. Problem with that excuse is that Superman and Wonder Woman fans were more likely to check the site that week for all "The Kiss" news since the announcement was made that week. I studied data gathering in grad school, and while a poll such at the one the site put up might have been fun for some, it was not representative; thus it was meaningless. The feelings which motivated those to vote were not meaningless, however, and I never said as much. Since this particular issue is off topic, if you'd like to debate it further we should do it via PM so as to not derail this thread.

[misslane38]

You mean those sicko comics where she tried to manipulate Superman into marrying her? Those? Oh yeah, Lois sells comics. By leaching off Superman and making him a dick so she can get sympathy. Let me see her head a title WITHOUT Superman and then let's talk how great she is.

Those Silver Age comics were written laden with misogyny. If Lois was a sicko, Superman was a dickish Peter Pan wannabe. Did you read and truly understand what I said about Lois supporting her own series? Because I'm saying exactly what you are saying: before we can say Lois cannot support her own title, her character actually has to get one that succeeds or fails in a modern marketplace.

Hell, I'll be happy if you get Lois to shine brightly and really do something to earn this pedestal you put her on.

It's not just me who admires her. Some of the many examples from comics and pop culture:

Not that I'll ever buy it because she does not interest me in a million years but they should try to do something. And I don't mean Flashpoint thing either where they dragged the Wonder Woman cast in too.

Flashpoint in its entirety was pretty bad. Wonder Woman's own books in that series weren't the greatest either. There was another solo series a while back by Mindy Newell. You can read more about it here.

She should have her own cast. maybe an early days book. Or a foreign correspondent book of adventures where she does her thing and meet different people and show us the greatest reporter you claim she is. Wouldn't you just love that?

Yes, I would love an early days book. Have you heard of this project DC passed on?

LOIS LANE: GIRL REPORTER by Dean Trippe

"Lois Lane, Girl Reporter follows the adventures of young Lois Lane. At eleven years old, Lois has discovered her calling: investigative journalism. She sets out to right wrongs and help out her friends. This series explores Lois’s character, reveals her surprising early influence on the future Man of Steel, and introduces fun new elements into this enduring character’s back story.

"In each book, Lois will tackle a problem or mystery affecting the members of the community she finds herself in as she travels around the country. The investigations in this series will not be mystical or supernatural (though some characters may suspect such sources), but real world problems that Lois works to set right."

(Source: ifanboy)

Don't knock em til you've tried em. Yes there is a ton of Lois trying to trick Superman into marrying her, but it plays out as a battle of wits. There are a ton of Lois getting her scoop stories as well. Or Lois traveling back in time to get with Jor-El. Or monsters falling in love with her. Let's face it, her life rocked. Hot men throwing themselves at her, a celebrity and it's never boring. It was a different time though.

All true. Lois's title during the Bronze Age was actually more fun and more feminist than today's modern comics. It's sad that she's actually been marginalized and regressed in some ways since then.



Above is an image of Bronze Age Lois right before she quit the Daily Planet to become a freelance journalist. The New 52 sure is innovative, fresh, and new. Just give Lois traits to Clark and it's BRAND NEW!

- And she gets kidnapped in any single one of them.

Lois did get kidnapped once or twice, but it wasn't a regular occurrence. Lois even saved Superman a few times. I guess even Superman can be a damsel-in-distress.

As for STAS: "Lois Lane? The one Superman always saves?
-'fraid so."
(World's Finest, part 1).

There's a important grammatical difference here. Superman does always save Lois Lane when she needs saving. But only if Lois had said, "The one Superman is always saving," would she be saying he spends most of his time saving her. So when Lois does occasionally find herself in trouble, Superman does save her. Is he always saving her? No.

Misslane has not been that innocent during her posting history either. Go back as far as the reboot and you'll see her...I say she because she claims to be a she...

What do you mean "claims" to be a she? I am a woman. It's not a claim; it's a fact. And, if you believe I have erred in the past, produce the evidence that was requested.

And telling people they are lacking in comprehension and insensitive etc and twisting other people's works

When people repeatedly claim you are complaining because you want Lois and Clark together when you've repeatedly said you are willing to wait a decade, then yes I believe I can legitimately claim they lack basic comprehension skills. And if someone says you are being too sensitive for being upset about a PR strategy designed to upset people, then that is indeed insensitive.

...I forget the name she called you fanboys last here...it was no better than moron.

Link?

She needs to take just as much responsibility as others as well.

Will anyone else be taking responsibility?

I would say the reaction you see here is what she has gotten for her attitude and the way she tries to suffocate others by spamming them and twisting topics into Lois. This topic is supposed to be about Scott Lobdell and the changes in the Super books. Once again.DERAILED.

Lobdell spoke about Lois in his interview about changes in the Super books. Thus this discussion is on topic. If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you want to talk about something else, then do. No one is stopping you.

[adkal]

- No, because the point to cutt off the tree not the forest.

That doesn't remove the 'root' of the 'problem', though. If all you do is 'cut off the tree', the roots it already has in place will 'suffocate' any new trees you put in its place. Nature itself uses fire to cleanse woodland and start afresh.

- To be honest, by classics, I meant oldies. I'm speaking of all the Silver Age stories I managed to read.

- And she gets kidnapped in any single one of them.
As for STAS: "Lois Lane? The one Superman always saves?
-'fraid so."
(World's Finest, part 1).

- Well, I really think overused formulas end up playing against the show that is using them (and I don't like Powers rangers or Smallville). But you know, the fact it make her look like an idiot is but one of the problems. Even if it's not her fault......why should we get invested in an event that happens all the time? After a while it's boring. Keep in mind I was arguing with someone who was saying that we should go back to the "good old days" where Lois would jump off an helicopter without a parachute for no reason just because she knew Superman would catch (and this one did happen).

-In the Silver Age, it was really not an hyperbole.

All of this actually is hyperbole, coupled with the (highly likely) aspect of 'if something is repeated often enough (and out of context enough) it becomes true'.

For example, if we took the decade from 1950 through to the end of 1959, how many times do you think Superman saved Lois Lane? How many stories were there in total? Of those stories, what percentage had the 'save'?

Right now, I don't know the answer to those questions, but if it turned out, for example, that Lois is 'only' saved 15% of the time, is that the same as 'always'? If it turns out she was saved 85% of the time then, frankly, it's the 'norm' and might as well be always, but I've got a feeling we'd find it not to be the case.

[Auguste Dupin]

That doesn't remove the 'root' of the 'problem', though. If all you do is 'cut off the tree', the roots it already has in place will 'suffocate' any new trees you put in its place. Nature itself uses fire to cleanse woodland and start afresh.



All of this actually is hyperbole, coupled with the (highly likely) aspect of 'if something is repeated often enough (and out of context enough) it becomes true'.

For example, if we took the decade from 1950 through to the end of 1959, how many times do you think Superman saved Lois Lane? How many stories were there in total? Of those stories, what percentage had the 'save'?

Right now, I don't know the answer to those questions, but if it turned out, for example, that Lois is 'only' saved 15% of the time, is that the same as 'always'? If it turns out she was saved 85% of the time then, frankly, it's the 'norm' and might as well be always, but I've got a feeling we'd find it not to be the case.

-Maybe. The point still stands.

-No. It. Is. Not.
Seriously, you've read those stories? These stories had Lois putting herself in reckless (and often pointless) danger all the time because she knew Superman would always find the time to save her. Hell, in the Maggin novel "Last Son of Krypton" she basically admit it to a sociologist. Except any smart person would know that all it takes is one time when Superman is on another planet or something to bite the dust.
It's clearly NOT 15%. More like 50 (at least in my 1959 archive), and I think I'm nice to her.If she's not in trouble, it means she was trying to force Superman to marry her, or that she isn't involved in the story. I'm not repeating something I heard, I'm talking about stories I read, and that I liked (seriously, most of them are just hilarious). Doesn't mean we should do it just like tht right now.

[davidgrantlloyd]

It is a shallow argument to say that Superman and Wonder Woman should be together because of the belief they can have sex or to only describe Superman and Wonder Woman as equals both by only evaluating compatibility based on superficial attributes like physical powers. Sometimes labels fit, like character assassination. What Lobdell did to Lois in Superman #13 was character assassination. That is not an attack on Lobdell as a person, but as a writer. As customers anyone is capable of critiquing a person's product. An actor's performance can be criticized, for example, as can a politician's effectiveness. Lobdell is a professional who was given a job to do, and I am allowed to call a spade a spade, which in this case means calling a character assassin a character assassin, because that is the truth presently. Lobdell took a Lois Lane who had been written as standing up to Morgan Edge in Superman #12 and turned her into the kind of sell out Clark Kent despised so much he had to leave his job. This is Lois Lane who is beloved and seen as a role model by many because of her status as an intrepid reporter with integrity. Lobdell threw all of that in the trash in the latest issue, and considering her challenging Edge was essentially her entire arc from Superman #1-#12 that means he also regressed a whole year of her character development in the Superman books putting her back at square one. I do not have to respect that. As Jon Stewart, host of The Daily Show once said, "I�m not going to censor myself to comfort [anyone's] ignorance."

Again, you've proven the point I was making. You have no respect for other fans views. You have no respect for professional people who work in the industry (unless, of course, by some miracle, they happen to meet your specific, narrow-minded, self-indulgent requirements). You only have respect for own inflated ego. This is why I choose to show you no respect. And this is precisely why you are, in my eyes, a "crappy person" (to put it mildly)

Plus, get off your high horse about belittling people's opinions and look in the mirror. You do remember that you said this to me just recently, correct? "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)." You're a hypocrite.

And as I said before, and I'll say it again, I make no apologies for the statements I made. I stand by them completely. You deserved every bit of it. It's not something I do often. Unlike you, who go about desperately trying to undermine every one else's views every chance you get. There are plenty of other people I disagree with but don't make an attack on because they just express their opinion, they don't go to obsessive lengths to denigrate other opinions the way you do. I also acknowledged that "2 wrongs don't make a right" (how convenient, but unsurprising, of you) to neglect mentioning that, and I also conceded that I'm not proud for losing my temper but, in the end, did what I know to be right. So, at least I have a sense of self-awareness. You don't. And at least, unlike you, I'm prepared to take responsibility for my actions (which leads to my next point)

I said the poll was meaningless as an accurate gauge of public opinion since it was not put to the rigorous standards of typical polling, like the kind done by Pew, Ipsos/Reuters, and the like. I also made that statement because the poll wasn't publicized whereas the one on another site was, and that one showed a different result. Moreover, the poll creator's only defense to my criticism was to say that since the poll wasn't publicized pro-SM/WW and pro-SM/LL fans had an equal opportunity to vote as visitors to the site that would have mostly likely seen it on its sidebar. Problem with that excuse is that Superman and Wonder Woman fans were more likely to check the site that week for all "The Kiss" news since the announcement was made that week. I studied data gathering in grad school, and while a poll such at the one the site put up might have been fun for some, it was not representative; thus it was meaningless. The feelings which motivated those to vote were not meaningless, however, and I never said as much.

The suggestion was there. You made it. And now, as usual, you're trying to weasel your way out of it rather than take responsibility. Another reason you deserve no respect.

Since this particular issue is off topic, if you'd like to debate it further we should do it via PM so as to not derail this thread.

We both know derailing threads is your speciality. However, in the spirit of not derailing this thread any further, I will make another post after this one and steer the discussion back to more relevant matters. Thanks for the invitation, but frankly you can stick it up your nose.

[666MasterOfPuppets]

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.

One thing is wanting the controversy by hooking up Superman with Wonder Woman instead of Lois, and the other is Superman ditching Lois for Wonder Woman, which is different. Especially considering that Supes has never been with Lois in current continuity. That is my point. But what I said is just a possibility. You could be right, or I could be right. Don't know.

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."

Yes. And the origin for that was what I had said, no? Yes.

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.

Me? I'm pretty calm, thank you.

Anyway...

[davidgrantlloyd]

Scott Lobdell is arguably a somewhat devisive figure in comics (judging from a lot of internet activity), but he's also a very talented writer. Back when he was working at Marvel, his take on the X-men was cool, and I really like some of his more recent work like Red Hood and the Outlaws. When it was first announced that he was coming over to Superman, I got excited. Obviously, many fans were nervous at first ... maybe it's because he's unpredictable ... a few tho who were initially a bit cynica have recently conceded (such as on DC's facebook page) that after having read #13 they found it to be quite enjoyable.

Lobdell suggested (keep in mind, I'm paraphrasing) that while he has some idea of his plans, he also tends make some things up along the way. While this can be percieved as risky, I'd argue that it's quite courageous; and there have been many artists, writers, performers, etc who have utilised spontaneity to great dramatic effect in various artistic fields because it can liven up the senses when used well; also in the cut-throat world of monlthy mainstream comics, deadlines, etc, the ability to constantly stay on one's toes and think fast is a definite asset.

Lobdell stated, "[T]he New 52 gave us fresh chances. In 'Superman' #13 when Clark quits the Daily Planet, you could have started the New 52 in that moment. I would hate for in two years if people are like, 'Oh, I liked the New 52 when it came out, but now it's more of the same thing.'"

This is the kind of approach, I believe, the Superman title needed. Unpredictability. The first 12 issues obviously copped criticism for being stale (I dropped the title after #8). Lobdell and Rocafort, with their energy and freshness, have given a shot of adrenaline to the man of steel, judging from #0 and #13.

Has he mentioned any iconic villains that he wants to introduce to the New 52, such as Mongul or Henshaw? How do you think Lobdell and Rocafort would present them?

Will the new character Dr Veritas turn out to be friend or foe?

[666MasterOfPuppets]

I don't trust Veritas yet. Not completely. Although Superman seems to. And I think Cyborg Superman would fit right in.

And it's interesting that a writer talks openly about making things up along the way. Like some other people have said other writers have done this to great success, like Morrison and I think Waid. Perhaps this is the medicine the Superbooks needed. Superman #13 made me smile.