Scott Lobdell to Appear on BBC America

Posted by G-Man (18919 posts) - - Show Bio

Award-winning comic book writer, stand-up comic and now... television personality on BBC AMERICA!

It looks like Scott Lobdell won't settle for answering fan's questions on COMIC VINE -- he'll also be appearing as a guest during this Thursday night's BBC airing of V FOR VENDETTA! He's appearing with International television hostess and model Asha Leo who towers above the writer of RED HOOD AND THE OUTLAWS, SUPERBOY and TEEN TITANS.

"It was a blast appearing side by side with the lovely and funny and talented Asha" said Scott. "Clearly she's on her way to superstardom, and I'm only glad I had the opportunity to perform with her at Meltdown Comics in Los Angeles where we shot."

Everyone knows Scott isn't above controversial points of view, so we can't wait to hear his commentary on V For Vendetta. Check your local listings!

#1 Posted by doordoor123 (3721 posts) - - Show Bio

I used to go to Meltdown Comics. Until I realized that Golden Apple was better. :D

#2 Posted by Mbecks14 (2029 posts) - - Show Bio

Can't he just go away? He's completely over exposed. He's not that great of a writer and he's kind of an ass. He unapologeticly ruined Starfire and the Titans and refuses to see his changes as a bad thing despite the overwhelming backlash. Mature.

#3 Posted by The Impersonator (5620 posts) - - Show Bio

"I'm only glad I had the opportunity to perform with her at Meltdown Comics in Los Angeles where we shot."

:P

#4 Posted by Wattup (646 posts) - - Show Bio

@Mbecks14 said:

Can't he just go away? He's completely over exposed. He's not that great of a writer and he's kind of an ass. He unapologeticly ruined Starfire and the Titans and refuses to see his changes as a bad thing despite the overwhelming backlash. Mature.

Yup. I agree with you 100%. Screw this guy.

#5 Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus (6836 posts) - - Show Bio

Asha is hot, I'll tell you what. Good for Scott!

#6 Posted by ReVamp (22798 posts) - - Show Bio

Ha. Nice Joke.

#7 Posted by NightFang (10274 posts) - - Show Bio

@RedheadedAtrocitus said:

Asha is hot, I'll tell you what. Good for Scott!

#8 Posted by TadThuggish (73 posts) - - Show Bio
#9 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35159 posts) - - Show Bio
@TadThuggish said:
This girl is a moron for expecting it to be like a cartoon.
#10 Posted by Mbecks14 (2029 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87 said:

@TadThuggish said:
This girl is a moron for expecting it to be like a cartoon.

Why? If she's not a comic junkie, then she probably didn't really know that the cartoons adapted from comics are usually different. And based on the whole concept of the relaunch, you'd think that DC would've taken the success of Teen Titans and Young Justice and ran with it in the comics instead of this. I think the new 52 has had a lot of success, but not in these areas

#11 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35159 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@TadThuggish said:
This girl is a moron for expecting it to be like a cartoon.

Why? If she's not a comic junkie, then she probably didn't really know that the cartoons adapted from comics are usually different. And based on the whole concept of the relaunch, you'd think that DC would've taken the success of Teen Titans and Young Justice and ran with it in the comics instead of this. I think the new 52 has had a lot of success, but not in these areas

Why should they changed the comics to be more like the cartoons? Have you any idea how many people would complain about that? It should be the other way round.
#12 Posted by Mbecks14 (2029 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87 said:

@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@TadThuggish said:
This girl is a moron for expecting it to be like a cartoon.

Why? If she's not a comic junkie, then she probably didn't really know that the cartoons adapted from comics are usually different. And based on the whole concept of the relaunch, you'd think that DC would've taken the success of Teen Titans and Young Justice and ran with it in the comics instead of this. I think the new 52 has had a lot of success, but not in these areas

Why should they changed the comics to be more like the cartoons? Have you any idea how many people would complain about that? It should be the other way round.

Yeah of course people would complain, but people complain about literally anything. The cartoons are on tv, and reach an exponentially larger audience than the comics. MAYBE if the comics reflected what was being represented on TV a little closer, the comics would pick up more sales. And a lot of comics are a little too mature for cartoon translation, like Detective Comics, it's a good read but it's super dark and creepy and it wouldn't work on screen for younger audiences. Coimcs are a very small market, and the younger audiences are a target that should be aimed at more, which they try to do.

But they are failing to aim to children by alienating them from books that they would be more naturally inclined to pick up. A popular batman book like Detective Comics, should not be read by children. In this case with Red Hood and the Outlaws, it features Starfire, a popular character from a well liked cartoon. A recognizable childhood icon to many. But if they wanted to pick up this book, they would be buying a borderline pornographic comic. Not all comic series are for children. That's more than fine. But the series that have potential for younger audiences, should be treated a little more carefully.

#13 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35159 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

@TadThuggish said:
This girl is a moron for expecting it to be like a cartoon.

Why? If she's not a comic junkie, then she probably didn't really know that the cartoons adapted from comics are usually different. And based on the whole concept of the relaunch, you'd think that DC would've taken the success of Teen Titans and Young Justice and ran with it in the comics instead of this. I think the new 52 has had a lot of success, but not in these areas

Why should they changed the comics to be more like the cartoons? Have you any idea how many people would complain about that? It should be the other way round.

Yeah of course people would complain, but people complain about literally anything. The cartoons are on tv, and reach an exponentially larger audience than the comics. MAYBE if the comics reflected what was being represented on TV a little closer, the comics would pick up more sales. And a lot of comics are a little too mature for cartoon translation, like Detective Comics, it's a good read but it's super dark and creepy and it wouldn't work on screen for younger audiences. Coimcs are a very small market, and the younger audiences are a target that should be aimed at more, which they try to do.

But they are failing to aim to children by alienating them from books that they would be more naturally inclined to pick up. A popular batman book like Detective Comics, should not be read by children. In this case with Red Hood and the Outlaws, it features Starfire, a popular character from a well liked cartoon. A recognizable childhood icon to many. But if they wanted to pick up this book, they would be buying a borderline pornographic comic. Not all comic series are for children. That's more than fine. But the series that have potential for younger audiences, should be treated a little more carefully.

Oh come on now "borderline pornographic" is  a complete exaggeration, there's more sexual content in a news paper than there is in this comic. There is plenty of comics that cater to a younger demographic but this is a comic with the Red Hood and Arsenal, two stone cold killers, what where they expecting puppy dogs and rainbows? Why should they be dumbed down for the kids instead of Starfire being made more edgy? This is a book about a group of teenagers, of course there going to talk about sex, in real life some people just like to have sex for the sake of having sex why shouldn't that be shown in comicbooks? I mean really it's a comic that showed a girl in a bikini that talked about having sex and people are acting like they where shown full on orgy's or something. 
 
Every one is like "omg a girl talked about having sex, she used to be so nice on the cartoon" but its not that when the children orientated Brave and the Bold is on and it comes to the comics when Batman is braking guys arms and smashing there face of walls? Why is violence being shown so much more acceptable than sex being talked about?
#14 Posted by -Vigil- (380 posts) - - Show Bio

This Starfire thing is driving me crazy. Facts:

  • I loved Starfire in the cartoon.
  • I started reading New Teen Titans the (1980 volume) and discovered I hated her there.
  • Starfire in the comics is psycho (okay, this isn't an objective fact, this is my opinion after having read pretty much every Titans-related comic).
  • I decided that the cartoon and the comics versions of Starfire are basically just different characters.
  • I strolled off happily into the sunset.

Why can't you guys do the same thing? In comics, different versions of characters are constantly being introduced, and new writers are constantly "ruining" characters in the main comics. So what? If you wait patiently, the version you know and love will be brought back by someone else.

Plus, it's not like Starfire was ever puritanical. In the (many) comics I read, she went around kissing strangers and wishing she was allowed to be nude in public. In the 80s, she was one of the first characters in DC (that I've seen) to be shown in bed with someone they weren't married to. I think Scott Lobdell is doing fine with Superboy and Teen Titans (which contains my favorite DC character), plus he's been very appreciative and accommodating to his fans when kindly answering their questions. Cut him some slack, okay?

#15 Posted by Mbecks14 (2029 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87 said:

Oh come on now "borderline pornographic" is a complete exaggeration, there's more sexual content in a news paper than there is in this comic. There is plenty of comics that cater to a younger demographic but this is a comic with the Red Hood and Arsenal, two stone cold killers, what where they expecting puppy dogs and rainbows? Why should they be dumbed down for the kids instead of Starfire being made more edgy? This is a book about a group of teenagers, of course there going to talk about sex, in real life some people just like to have sex for the sake of having sex why shouldn't that be shown in comicbooks? I mean really it's a comic that showed a girl in a bikini that talked about having sex and people are acting like they where shown full on orgy's or something. Every one is like "omg a girl talked about having sex, she used to be so nice on the cartoon" but its not that when the children orientated Brave and the Bold is on and it comes to the comics when Batman is braking guys arms and smashing there face of walls? Why is violence being shown so much more acceptable than sex being talked about?

Yeah a lot of comics that cater to younger audiences are for really young audiences like 6-9. 10-15 year olds are in a very awkward limbo where they don't want to be reading little kiddy comics and can handle more complicated stories. But did you see the images in Catwoman? It was kinda gross. I'm a liberally minded 19 year old male. And it even made me uncomfortable. I have a brother who's 12. I would NEVER hand him Red Hood/Outlaws. Kids going into a comic book store aren't going to know the history of Arsenal and Red Hood, but they might pick up Red Hood/Outlaws for starfire. It's fine to have a more grown up version of the characters for a book like this. Sex is fine to talk about in books too. But it's the WAY that it is portrayed.

Starfire was basically naked and the way she was talking about sex, she sounded like a skank. And it was completely out of character. That's what the problem is with the situation.

Sex is a more mature topic. And yeah it's ok to include in some books with some characters. Like in Detective Comics, Batman has sex with a reporter. But it happens off panel, and it's flirty and almost innocent. Not "i like sex. let's fuck."

You're clearly not mature enough if you can't see why Red Hood/Outlaws is flawed and how it could possibly alienate new readers. Comics need to work with the success of their cartoons, basic math.

#16 Posted by SC (13403 posts) - - Show Bio
@-Vigil- said:

This Starfire thing is driving me crazy. 

Why can't you guys do the same thing? 

plus he's been very appreciative and accommodating to his fans when kindly answering their questions. Cut him some slack, okay?

 
 Me too, but - and I am not sure of this is a rhetorical question, but I just wanted to give you well, one answer to your question among many potential.  
 
A reason why so many people can't do the same, is because DC relaunched their entire line. To make more money. Its a business. They wanted to take a risk, and so far its paying off. Its really, really not about one individual fan and whether they liked the book or didn't, not really. Except somehow on message boards thats always what it seems to come down to. Apparently these days if you just don't like something blindly your a hater and if you don't hate something, you love things blindly. Still... bear with me. DC New 52 relaunch - about making their characters, the stories, the books, more accessible, to more people, whilst holding onto the fans they already had. Since what was going on before? Eh was doing okay, but comics numbers have been dropping and dropping and DC must be pissed trailing Marvel all the time. Not so much new fans coming into comics to replace the old fans dropping off.  
 
So anyway continuing on, Giant relaunch? Multiple issue #1's? The most well known fact and law in all comics? Number one issues always sell absurdly better than following issues. The whole reason and motivation for the relaunch? Get new fans, not a few hundred, get enough new fans to try and stem the massive nose dive sales were doing earlier. New fans, the type not accustomed to the typical things most other comic fans just put up with. Take a few risks at getting a type of fan that will be loyal to your product (as opposed to the ones checking in for controversy) etc etc well ideally... you think this would be an albeit risky but worthy mindset and many, many of DC's new 52 have done this... and its not that DC should do this. Its just that all those haters and critics and people not happy, they have money. Lots and lots of money and they probably want to spend it on comics and there are ways that writers and artists can get money from those people as well as the people who were happy with the comic. Its not easy... but its not hard either. Its relative.  
 
Thats sorta why a lot of people can't do the same thing. I can wait patiently, and I am, and the book is starting to improve for me. Then again I am not paying $5 thousand dollars for my issue, I am just paying $5 and since its impossible for me to force people to buy comics, to prevent the comics industry from looking worse and worse and having to take more risks and risks and rely on gimmicks and gimmicks to get though this hard financial time, what I do instead is appeal to the creators writing the story to be smarter. If they are smarter, better? They can do this really cool trick, where they appeal to more people without losing the appeal of people who are more patient - I mean, that is the whole point and exercise of the relaunch - I think Red Hood is one of DC's safe books they just roll out for the majority if fans who are use to how comics were and content as opposed to the types of fans who don't settle and think things could be better (which is admittedly hard and I personally don't think Red Hood was bad as a book - just more indicative of why comics isn't growing (but the argument can be made that there are other books doing that)  
 
Eh I find his answers to questions defensive and overgeneralized. That makes sense though, he is trying to sell a product and so money is involved - I expect him to say whatever he thinks will make his product sell more as opposed to sincerely addressing creative concerns.  
 
Anyway your post had some great points! I hope I do not come off antagonistic, that is not my intent. 
Moderator
#17 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (35159 posts) - - Show Bio
@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Oh come on now "borderline pornographic" is a complete exaggeration, there's more sexual content in a news paper than there is in this comic. There is plenty of comics that cater to a younger demographic but this is a comic with the Red Hood and Arsenal, two stone cold killers, what where they expecting puppy dogs and rainbows? Why should they be dumbed down for the kids instead of Starfire being made more edgy? This is a book about a group of teenagers, of course there going to talk about sex, in real life some people just like to have sex for the sake of having sex why shouldn't that be shown in comicbooks? I mean really it's a comic that showed a girl in a bikini that talked about having sex and people are acting like they where shown full on orgy's or something. Every one is like "omg a girl talked about having sex, she used to be so nice on the cartoon" but its not that when the children orientated Brave and the Bold is on and it comes to the comics when Batman is braking guys arms and smashing there face of walls? Why is violence being shown so much more acceptable than sex being talked about?

Yeah a lot of comics that cater to younger audiences are for really young audiences like 6-9. 10-15 year olds are in a very awkward limbo where they don't want to be reading little kiddy comics and can handle more complicated stories. But did you see the images in Catwoman? It was kinda gross. I'm a liberally minded 19 year old male. And it even made me uncomfortable. I have a brother who's 12. I would NEVER hand him Red Hood/Outlaws. Kids going into a comic book store aren't going to know the history of Arsenal and Red Hood, but they might pick up Red Hood/Outlaws for starfire. It's fine to have a more grown up version of the characters for a book like this. Sex is fine to talk about in books too. But it's the WAY that it is portrayed.

Starfire was basically naked and the way she was talking about sex, she sounded like a skank. And it was completely out of character. That's what the problem is with the situation.

Sex is a more mature topic. And yeah it's ok to include in some books with some characters. Like in Detective Comics, Batman has sex with a reporter. But it happens off panel, and it's flirty and almost innocent. Not "i like sex. let's fuck."

You're clearly not mature enough if you can't see why Red Hood/Outlaws is flawed and how it could possibly alienate new readers. Comics need to work with the success of their cartoons, basic math.

I'm 24 I'm pretty sure am mature enough. You'r obviously not as liberally minded as you make out, basically naked? she was in a bikini, do girls not wear bikinis at the beach where you live? It was fully in her character, you clearly only know her through the cartoon where she was completely out of character. All she was doing was talking about having sex while wearing a bikini, you can switch on any tv channel at around 5 in the afternoon and see the same thing. Have you even read the series or are you just going off of what other people have told you? Catwoman is far more racy as it has a basic sex scene in it and that's why it's rated T+.   
#18 Edited by Mbecks14 (2029 posts) - - Show Bio

@spiderbat87 said:

@Mbecks14 said:

@spiderbat87 said:

Oh come on now "borderline pornographic" is a complete exaggeration, there's more sexual content in a news paper than there is in this comic. There is plenty of comics that cater to a younger demographic but this is a comic with the Red Hood and Arsenal, two stone cold killers, what where they expecting puppy dogs and rainbows? Why should they be dumbed down for the kids instead of Starfire being made more edgy? This is a book about a group of teenagers, of course there going to talk about sex, in real life some people just like to have sex for the sake of having sex why shouldn't that be shown in comicbooks? I mean really it's a comic that showed a girl in a bikini that talked about having sex and people are acting like they where shown full on orgy's or something. Every one is like "omg a girl talked about having sex, she used to be so nice on the cartoon" but its not that when the children orientated Brave and the Bold is on and it comes to the comics when Batman is braking guys arms and smashing there face of walls? Why is violence being shown so much more acceptable than sex being talked about?

Yeah a lot of comics that cater to younger audiences are for really young audiences like 6-9. 10-15 year olds are in a very awkward limbo where they don't want to be reading little kiddy comics and can handle more complicated stories. But did you see the images in Catwoman? It was kinda gross. I'm a liberally minded 19 year old male. And it even made me uncomfortable. I have a brother who's 12. I would NEVER hand him Red Hood/Outlaws. Kids going into a comic book store aren't going to know the history of Arsenal and Red Hood, but they might pick up Red Hood/Outlaws for starfire. It's fine to have a more grown up version of the characters for a book like this. Sex is fine to talk about in books too. But it's the WAY that it is portrayed.

Starfire was basically naked and the way she was talking about sex, she sounded like a skank. And it was completely out of character. That's what the problem is with the situation.

Sex is a more mature topic. And yeah it's ok to include in some books with some characters. Like in Detective Comics, Batman has sex with a reporter. But it happens off panel, and it's flirty and almost innocent. Not "i like sex. let's fuck."

You're clearly not mature enough if you can't see why Red Hood/Outlaws is flawed and how it could possibly alienate new readers. Comics need to work with the success of their cartoons, basic math.

I'm 24 I'm pretty sure am mature enough. You'r obviously not as liberally minded as you make out, basically naked? she was in a bikini, do girls not wear bikinis at the beach where you live? It was fully in her character, you clearly only know her through the cartoon where she was completely out of character. All she was doing was talking about having sex while wearing a bikini, you can switch on any tv channel at around 5 in the afternoon and see the same thing. Have you even read the series or are you just going off of what other people have told you? Catwoman is far more racy as it has a basic sex scene in it and that's why it's rated T+.

Are you kidding me? Her suit barely covers her tits. She's wearing two napkins with string haha. Girls wear bikinis, i work at a pool, i see bikinis all the time. I know Starfire from the comics and the show. Her original appearances in the New Teen Titans, she was bubbly, naiive, and cheerful, with a temper and a thing for Robin/Nightwing. In the tv show for children, she is basically that but dumbed down and exaggerated for comedic purposes for a younger audience. In more recent Teen Titans comics, Starfire is older, more mature and she does have sex and likes it and it a little tempermental. I can't speak for her portrayal beyond the first issue, but the big issue is that the DCnu is supposed to bring in new and young readers. Starfire is a recognizable character (from the TV show). A lot more recognizable than Arsenal and Red Hood. So when younger people pick up the book to see her, and they find this emotionless tramp, that's a problem. Starfire has always viewed sex as pleasurable because of the emotional and personal connection. Not just to have platonic robo-sex with randies. She mostly has only slept with Dick Grayson, who she loves. In the first issue Starfire came off as a male fantasy doll. Sexy, dumb, aloof, and always willing to fuck for fun. She doesn't have to be the sugary sweet naiive little alien girl from the animated series. But she shouldn't be this.

Overall i don't care if starfire has sex with Jason or Roy. It's the way she did it. and it's the way it was written as just "Let's bang". And it's just so counter-productive of the entire new 52. If you enjoy the book for the sex and violence that's great. But because you have that in there a whole different audience is alienated. The book is only for 15-16+ male audiences who read comics and know C list characters. Instead of a wider range of ages and genders who they could have roped in through the tv show. It's just a bad marketing stategy.

#19 Edited by -Vigil- (380 posts) - - Show Bio

@SC said:

Anyway your post had some great points! I hope I do not come off antagonistic, that is not my intent.

You didn't sound antagonistic at all! Looking back on it, I sounded worse (although I didn't meant to). Your comment was great, thank you for being intelligent and open-minded. :D

This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.