DC Moving forward with Lobo??

Looks like the latest DC Comics back bencher might actually get some movement on the proposed film. Lobo, the space mercenary that thrives on violence may actually be getting a film adaptation.

Screen Rant announces:

Do you remember Lobo, the extremely violent character and comic book from DC Comics? He was extremely popular for a few years in the early 1990s with comics that were over-the-top in violence, to the point of just being redundant. Anyway, Warner Bros. may finally be moving forward with a long-in-gestation film adaptation.

Lobo is an intergalactic bounty hunter who basically always gets his man or woman, and does so in violent fashion. In some ways he’s DC Comics’ version of Wolverine, and the two fought each other in 1996’s DC vs. Marvel comic book mini-series.

I think the emphasis there should be “Do you remember Lobo?” followed by a side order of “he was popular for a few years in the 90s”

Really? Out of all the popular characters that stand a chance at being marketed to a target demographic, they take this obscure D-List 2 dimensional character to make a movie out of? The fanboys will cry that this MUST be an R, but I still hold that no movie REQUIRES an R Rating. An NC-17 or R might be the only hope of this movie having anything to look forward to since he lacks any real story, and it would just be equivalent to the Torture Porn genre with an anti-hero.

He is always being called “the Wolverine of the DC Universe” because of his violent tendancies and problem with authority, but while Wolverine actually has a personality and a story, Lobo makes up for the lack thereof with more violence.

This character ONLY came to popularity because of the graphic and over the top violence he brought to the page. Everyone loves the rebel who strikes out against conformity and the space-biker look, super strength and invulnerability just let him do it without having to care about consequences.

DC has been playing catch up with Marvel. Despite the popularity of Batman and the luke warm reception of Superman, DC doesn’t have much else to fall back on. This is proving it.

I really hope they spend their time making a movie that might actually be worthwhile instead of trying to bank on the flash-in-the-pan popularity of this wasted character with no storyline.

Comment with Facebook

54 thoughts on “DC Moving forward with Lobo??

  1. lol @ the ‘DCs Wolverine’ statements. Wolvie’s cool, but Lobo stood toe to toe with the big blue boyscout, Supe. Wolvie’s not on Bo’s level.

    In addition to the violence, Lobo was half about crude humor. Half the stories and dialogue and his reactions were just flat out hilarious. The Lobo character, like Spawn, will be a character that would be bigger after a movie came out, simply because many non-comic fans aren’t aware of him, but once he received ‘exposure’, many of your average male target demographic would eat it up. I personally find ‘traditional’ superheroes like Green Lantern to be far less interesting than anti-heroes. Most NON-comic book fans would probably agree. If Rambo wore fruity tootie undies, and refused to kill, he would not have had as much appeal.

    1. Well Randomguy, the fact that the popularity of Lobo in early 90s comics was directly because they made the character a Wolverine spoof.

      Not that people assumed that connection. The writers in control of Lobo in his revival in the early 90s specifically said that Lobo was intended to be an over-the-top parody of Marvel Comics superhero Wolverine.

      You laugh, but its not observation. Its fact. Thats what the character was.

  2. LOL at DC fanboys saying things like “OMG LOBO?!?!?! WHY NOT TEH MARTIAN MANHUNTER?!?!?” lol because every single DC toon ever invented, besides Batman and Lobo was LAME. Im talking hella lame. so lame that when people try to compare one lame character to another they compare it to DC toons lol.

    “they take this obscure D-List 2 dimensional character to make a movie out of” As opposed to all those cool A list ones DC has lol. TEH FLASH!! look out man I dont think the worlds ready for cool that fast.

    “This character ONLY came to popularity because” He wasnt some lame water dude or wonder chick? Plasticman is the real pick for movie madness lol
    This rodney dude seems like a Little Mermaid fan. Brother bear right up his ally lol. I can see it now, HOUSE OF 1,000 CORPSES THE PG13 VERSION lmao Oh wait wait I know how about Halloween 2 now with more flowers and “implied” violence lol. People coming out of the the show being all like,”Omg dude! Ive never seen so much over the top implied violence! It waz crazy”

    People talking serious about comic book movies is about the dumbest thing ever. New Astroboy movie coming out and O M G had it better be done RIGHT lol.

    Oh and on the topic of R rated crap

    be sure to check you man crad at the door

    1. Well at least you managed to illustrate that you know nothing about comics.

      And that you know nothing about me.

      Nolan proved that you can make a serious comic book movie and have broad appeal. This is why people are so eager to see other franchises treated like “real movies”

      Be sure to check your own narrow views at the door.

  3. I never thought much about Lobo, even as a more adult side of ol’ cheesy DC. He rides around on a flying space chopper, as in bike chopper. Pretty lame if you ask me.

    Unless the trailer turns out to be freakin’ awesome, I’ll pass.

  4. Wow, lots of philosophical pandering to the MPAA censors. Wankers…(The MPAA, not fellow TMBers)

    My comments will be to the prospects of the movie possibility. I don’t think this will be able to happen for a couple of reasons.

    First of all, Giffen is a hiliarious writer, but he definitely has his fans. But if Gaiman and Moore can’t generate Box office returns, most of which were great movies (except LXG….blech), I don’t think a lesser known but still talented writer such as Giffen will be able to make a dent.

    However, if McFarlane is bringing back Spawn…I guess anything is possible.

    If they went ahead with Lobo, may I suggest Jeffrey Dean Morgan or Javier Bardem?

    And lastly, if DC/WB wants “their own Wolverine”, then I suggest The Sub Mariner.

  5. By the way, I don’t think anybody has said that you are wrong in regard to any movie could be made without an R rating. Your just viewing everything with tunnel vision (not meant to be insulting) with a focus on any movie can be made without an R rating. Other people are just bringing up other pointers as well that you seem to be interpreting as being against your statement, which they are not. Some statements point out that some franchises were better when they were R rated; while other statements refer to the fact it works the other way as well that any movie could also be made into an R rated movie. Nobody disputes the fact it is by choice that a movie is made to be a certain rating and that due to the almighty dollar most movies shoot for a PG-13 rating to increase the demographic that can see it.

    In regard to Old Boy, I use it as an example because you would have to change a huge chunk of the movie to drop the adult themes that really make it worthy of that R rating. Still not disputing the fact that it could be done, its just good the way it is and something might be lost if it was changed.

  6. Interestingly enough, I think it takes a stronger movie to have good enough writing and drama to tell serious stories with a G/PG/PG13 rating. I agree with Rodney when he says sometimes a serious movie has larger impact when you leave out the gratuitous materials.

    1. And sometimes you have a greater impact when you leave it in. Schindler’s List and Passions of Christ would not have had the impact they did if they left out the majority of the scenes that gave it an R rating. Truthfully its not a matter of leaving it in or taking it out, it’s more about how it is used. Throwing in the gore and violence for the sake of gore and violence is one thing; however, meticulously using it for the sake of transmitting a message to the viewers is something completely different. Properly used, adult content can really change an average movie into something good. It’s the blatant pointless content that fails to serve a purpose. I remember some old horror movie where a chick falls down a set of stairs and when she hits the bottom her shirt magically pops open and her bra breaks, providing the obligatory tit shot for an 80’s R rated horror flick. Even when I was little and saw that my thoughts were, “Well, that was pointless.” Schindler’s List on the other hand used the adult content to show the audience what it was like for the Jewish community in Nazi Germany during WWII. You can read about it and imagine it, but when you actually see it being done, even though it is all actors, it really drives the reality of that time period home in the viewers eyes.

  7. I thought Warner Bros owned DC, or were affiliated with is through Time/Warner. How then, can it be so difficult for a company to make a film to which they own, or can easily obtain, the rights for. Surely a deccent Superman, Green lantern, Flash, Wonder Woman, Justice League, etc etc film can be made easily, since there are so many people who would watch them.
    Of course, making a film like Steel, which the Shack, all those years ago, probably made them rethink their B-list movie policy. Get away from Batman and Superman for a moment, and check out your long and distinguished history, and make some decent films with other characters for once.

  8. I’m all for a “Lobo” movie!!!!!

    Sheriff Lobo….

    that spinoff character from TV’s BJ and the Bear.
    As for the DC comics intergalactic bounty hunter? Zero interest.
    Unless Eli Roth directed it, anyway.

  9. What a freaking awful idea.

    Lobo was basically as you say, satirical violence-fetish. How the hell do you turn that into a mainstream ‘superhero’ movie?

    The only way I can see it working is if Quentin Tarantino could turn it into an over the top violent B-movie where Lobo isn’t the main character. Any other way of doing this sort of character would just be lame.

  10. GOD i hate dc

    Lobo? Really?

    Do you guys realize how much money they would make and how easily they could become half as good as MARVEL if they just release a good Flash movie? Or Martian Manhunter?? JLA is AWESOME! And they could go over the top….they have such GREAT characters yet they stick to the same 2 for 50 years, making like 20 movies for those 2 popular characters…and forgeting they have a great lineup

    Sure DC…make a fucking Lobo movie…damn theyre stupid

    Ok. I liked Lobo…he uses a sword, a machine gun, and chains…this guys awesome…but hes not a name…if people see a “Lobo” trailer it wont be the same thing as seeing a Flash trailer staring Ryan Reynolds

    If made right Flash could be a WAY better movie then Spider-Man 1

    DC has no fucking clue what they got. And if they do….why wont they use it? UGH! I just CANT be a DC fan! Its too frustrating….Im happier being a MARVEL fan because I know my favorite characters have a shot of making it into the bog screen….if AquaMan was Marvel he would already have a movie

    Aquaman is badass if he wants to be. Hes Namor but without the douche character

  11. It could be good if they made it a little funny. Instead of being super serious like Saw or Hostel, the violence could be more like an Itchy & Scratchy cartoon. That’s the only way I could see a Lobo movie being decent.

  12. Why scrape the bottom of the barrel like this? DC’s finally gaining momentum on their franchises like Green Lantern and I really want to see The Flash on the big screen.
    Lobo is another 90’s cliche who’s too stuck in his time period. They can make movies of far better characters in the DC universe.

  13. Write Comment here. Before you do, review these rules:
    1) Stay on topic
    2) Disagree and debate, but no insulting other commenters or the author
    3) off topic messages for the author should be emailed directly, not left as a comment.

    is this the best dc can do there are far better
    heros to make movies out of that includes both marvel and dc.

    dc has promised wonder women, green lantern, flash, there has even been talk about dc doing
    a metal men movie and yes justice league

    so far all dc has done other than batman and superman which i love is nothing but superman and batman movies

    were just now hearing that theres finally a director for g.l. and as for the others nothing zip zero yet marvel is shooting out films quicker than the octomom is shooting out babies

    if dc and warners can’t get along to get these other films made then they should find a different distributer and play catch up with marvel

    1. I’m glad they didn’t do that Justice League movie. The cast for that was uninspiring.

      I don’t know, maybe it’s an organizational thing. Marvel looks to have their shit together while DC/WB seem happy enough to ride on Batman’s coattails for a while. DC has some awesome properties that could easily be adapted for the big screen. Hopefully I see them in my lifetime. lol

  14. Speaking of Supes, anything leak from WB or DC lately on the “reboot” project..???? They have to fine tune the MoS before jumping to Lobo. I’m very hopeful however for the GL movie.

  15. Actually, in the Superman series, the animated ones, they had a two parter with Lobo.

    I thought those episodes were great. If they portray Lobo as they did there, i would very much like to see that movie.

  16. instead of the immensely lame Lobo…

    ..why not just create another batman franchise alongside the existing one?

    base it on paul pope’s amazing and gritty batman: year 100, its far away enough from the continuity to not affect it at all

    why not warners and dc have little else to go on

  17. I know movies don’t have to be “R” but let’s face it the crowds of movie fans who scream “R” usually want to see more extreme acts of violence and probably some nudity thrown in.

    I agree there are great quality PG-13 movies out there, Iron Man and The Dark Knight being perfect examples, but people like to see the Punisher be really bloody violent punishing and John McClane scream “Yippppeeee Kayeeeee [email protected]#@*!ker and Aliens ripping people to shreds.

    And I must admit even though the Dark knight was fantastic, I still would love to see a Dark Knight that was rated R. Let’s face it who wouldn’t want to see a rated “R” Joker on the big screen?

    1. And Harley Quinn goes topless as she drops the f bomb ten times as she tries to bust Joker out of Arkham, who repeats a word that sounds like hunt!

      and the next official Bat-villain in Nolan’s universe is Cornelius Stirk!*

      Zsasz also returns- as he cuts the numbers of his victims into his wrists!

      An R rated Batman!
      That would rule!

      * Stirk is a telepath who increases his power by eating human hearts

  18. I think this is a blatant move for “our Wolverine” on DC’s part. They should focus like a laser on the hallmark characters and then move onto ancillary characters. Too much to ask DC-fellas??? TDK an obvious exception….heh…

    1. Green Arrow was written to be a maximum security prison called Supermax that Oliver Queen was wrongfully convicted of a murder and is sent there, where all the other villains he put away are currently doing time.

      Last I heard they don’t let you take a bow into prison with you and more than half of what makes Green Arrow cool is his bow.

      I am glad they scrapped that idea. But I wish they would make a Green Arrow.

    2. Since reading the script review for SUPERMAX, I wish they would’ve pulled the trigger on the project. Sure, it could fail miserably, but it’s an original idea and sounds interesting.

    3. I am sure Supermax might have been a decent idea on its own, but to cram Oliver Queen into it just seems a waste of a unique prison break action film and a superhero film.

      He has to have the bow…

  19. Not at all interested in the movie, but your “no movie REQUIRES an R Rating” comment always makes me laugh. No movie requires a G, PG, PG-13, or NC-17 rating either; however, if based on the target demographics studios choose to shoot for a specific rating. Pixar could make an NC-17 animation if they wanted; however, since their target audience is all ages they go for the G or PG rating. Where as if your making a movie to target teens and tweens you go for the PG-13, and adults… well, adults doesn’t matter at they can see anything anyway. Personally I prefer R movies for that added adult content whatever it might be. Die Hard 4 was good, but Die Hard 1 and 3 I liked a lot more. AvP sucked, Predator 1 and 2 were good. Terminator 1 & 2 were awesome, 3 was a waste of time. Sure it was not the rating that ruined some of these, but it was the dumbing down process to drop a movie from an R to a PG-13 that hurt the over all presentation of the movie. Could these R rated movies been dumbed down to be PG-13? Sure, but I think they would have lost something in the end. Could you imagine Schindler’s List as a PG-13 movie? Sure, but damn it would have lost so much of its impact. I am curious, though, of how some of these PG-13 movies would have turned out if they would of been made with the thought of making an R movie.

    Should Lobo be an R flick or a PG-13 flick? Know clue, not really worried about it as it really doesn’t interest me. I am sure there people voting for both sides of the coin. Once they make one, though, we will be left wondering what it would have been like if they went for the other rating.

    1. I wonder what it’d be like for a R rated Wolverine movie. Can you imagine Wolvie graphically dismembering thugs with cat-like reflexes and the speed of a gazelle? Oh yeah…there’s the VG, close enough! ;-)

      I’m of the belief that movies don’t NEED to be R Rated, but certain characters would thrive better in a R rated world.

    2. Name ANY movie that can’t be made R rating? Keep in mind that sex, repeated coarse language, nudity, graphic violence and gore give you an R.

      Including those things is just sensational crap. And the movies cannot be sold to a younger audience or make toys based on it when its an R rating.

      The movies you gave as examples had NOTHING to do with them being an R or not. Die Hard lost the “fucker” in his catchphrase, aside from that, same guy, same franchise.

      AvP sucked becuase the movie sucked. It would not have been better with the gore.

      Terminator 3 sucked because it sucked. Not because it wasn’t an R.

      They were not “dumbed down” for the rating. They were dumbed down because of the writing. Has NOTHING to do with the rating or your point.

      YES! I could imagine Schindler’s List as a PG-13. There is a very serious topic to discuss with that film, but there was no reason to show gore. It would have been the same story without the graphic illustrations. They would have lost nothing.

    3. Methos, an R Rated Wolverine would have had him in a love scene with a topless SilverFox and people would have said Fuck more. That’s all.

      Oh and more blood.

      Wouldnt have changed a thing.

    4. “YES! I could imagine Schindler’s List as a PG-13. There is a very serious topic to discuss with that film, but there was no reason to show gore. It would have been the same story without the graphic illustrations. They would have lost nothing.”

      Rodney you’ve got to be kidding me. The holocaust without the graphic illustrations? I don’t think it would be the same and I would have to go with Spielberg on his choice for making the explicit choices he made. If he felt it was critical to his vision to be that explicit, I would trust an artist of his caliber to make that final decision. Now if it was Micheal Bay or Brett Ratner…now that is another story.

    5. Sorry, I don’t need to see bloody acts of violence to know that it happened. There are dozens of artistic visuals that can be used to illustrate a person dying in a gas chamber without actually taking the camera in there with them and watching their eyes bleed while they gasp their horrifying last breath.

      You can still illustrate the severity of the events without being so blatantly literal about them.

      That a director CHOOSES to go that way to illustrate it is fine. Its the choice they make when making a film. But they didnt HAVE to do that to get the same message across.

    6. @Rodney

      Blood is the only thing I care about in an R Rated Wolvie film. The studio can keep the “Fucks” and topless scene, bring on the violence. Imagine one of Logan’s berserker rages unleashed with the support of an R rating. It would be bloody marvelous! I’m not saying Wolverine needs or should be R, just that it would be interesting to see such carnage on screen.

    7. Rodney you can’t have it both ways. If a Director CHOOSES to illustrate a scene more explicitly, that basically means he has to because of the choice he made. He HAD to make that CHOICE because the explicitness best illustrate his point or vision.

      Do I believe that CHOICE might be different between directors? Yes. That choice might be different between directors like Ridley Scott, Coppola, Spielberg, vs. directors like Bay or Ratner or Stephen Sumners. Directors like Spielberg are so thorough and exhaustive in their vision that choices are not randomly made. Those CHOICES are HAVE TO’s in their minds.

      The Normandy beach scene for instance in Private Ryan was so much more dramatic than the Longest Day beach scene. Now I love both movies but Steven believed in the gore required for his vision, for this opening scene and I really believed it payed of for him in spades. It’s to bad the rest of the movie didn’t (That’s another discussion) but that was on of the best long takes ever in the history of Hollywood.

    8. If you think the only difference between Die Hard R and Die Hard PG-13 is the word “Fuck” then I would recommend rewatching them. The violence in the movies are on two different levels, the characters (specifically the villains) are very different between the R and PG-13, and the tone of the movies are quite different as well.

      Your right, AvP sucked because it sucked, but what if they had wanted to make an R rated AvP? You honestly think we would of ended up with the exact same movie? If you sat the writers down and said “alright, I want you to write two scripts. An R rated one and a PG-13 one.”, I think you would end up with two very different movies. That, however, will be a mystery forever as I stated before.

      All the movies I listed are examples of movies that were better when they were R. Would they have succeeded had they removed all the R rated material? Refer back to the forever mystery. All I was doing was stating some examples of movies that started off R and good and ended up PG-13 and mediocre.

      You a movie that has a history of R rated content and make it into a PG-13, then yes you have dumbed it down. You have removed the content that made the others R.

      Over all I think you just missed the point of what I was saying. My point is that any movie with any rating could have been made for any other rating; however, the targeted audiences for said movies requires a certain rating so everything is designed around that. Your saying no movie has to be an R, and you are correct. I did not disagree with you. It is just some movies are more entertaining for some people when there is that R rated content. Just as any R movie could be made with a lower rating, any low rated movie could have been made to be rated R. Could you imagine had they made Toy Story where Jesse gets railed by Woody in the middle of the movie? Granted Pixar is into family friendly movies, therefore they did not have that occur.

      The any movie could be made not R is a moot point as any other rated movie could have been made for any other rating.

    9. And Rodney I will also add that Alien without the chest bursting scene that Ridley so beautifully devised is essential to making Alien a master of horror filmmaking today. Had Ridley shot it less explicitly, the impact would be so dramatically less that it might not be the legend it is today.It was his call his vision but he felt it was essential…he HAD to shoot it that way for it was essential to the story and I think he made the right decision.

    10. He didn’t HAVE to shoot it like that. But he did.

      How you feel about it afterwards or who it affected is irrelevant. I am not discussing the results of graphic gore on screen. The story would have played out exactly the same and had the same impact if he used a different technique without the gore.

      Sometimes what you DONT see has a deeper impact.

    11. Rodney that is the whole point of shooting something one way vs shooting it another way, gore vs. non gore for example. A director is hoping to illicit a specific response that he or she is looking for. That’s the whole point of movie making in general, audience reaction. Yes sometimes seeing nothing can be impactful as seeing something. But that is not an absolute statement. You can’t tell me the scene in Alien would not be legend and a brilliant shot without the graphic and explicit representation Ridley chose. Nor are the Normandy beach scenes from the Longest Day vs. Private Ryan the same…the violence and gore helped elevate and provide a more visceral experience provoking an entirely different experience from the audience.

    12. Rodney I should not have said absolute since you did say “Sometimes” in the last part of your statement but I do stand by the rest of my argument.

      One other thing, I do think you and John are confusing random gore and violence vs. gore and violence used to convey and propel a story. Directors like Ridley, Spielberg, Cameron and Coppola are not random directors. Choices are well thought out and chosen for reasons they think are necessary and are part of their process to deliver great cinema and provoke the reaction(s) they hope for. Directors like Ratner, Bay and even Eli Roth have no understanding of that process at all. Substitute any image they shoot in their movies and it wouldn’t make a difference.

    13. Here is one for you Rodney. Old Boy. That movie’s entire story is based around adult themes. The themes alone make it worthy of that R rating. Could you imagine watching a movie *spoilers ahead* based so heavily on vengeance to the point their is an incestuous scene between a father and daughter, and then take that and give it a PG-13 rating? Even if they took out any sign of graphic violence, nudity, and whatever else you still have that story. Even if left to the mind of the father and daughter copulating without showing anything, it is still a very adult theme deserving of an R rating.

      1. You don’t get it. You can name a dozen films that had graphic violence and that doesn’t change the fact that if it were filmed creatively to IMPLY the violence instead of just blatantly illustrating every tooth grinding moment, that it wouldnt change the story.

        They show plenty of violence in PG13 stuff, just not as graphic. Its simply a matter of choice on the directors part. If they feel that is the way they want to illicit that response, thats the tool they are going to use. But they could use a different tool and illicit the same response. You just feel that they cant get the same response because they didn’t use it. Every example you bring up, I could illustrate how they could do it differently and get the same results.

        Its just choice. And in this topic, Lobo is nothing but a storyless two-dimensional character with no depth. The point I was making is that he has no valuable draws, so the only thing they could do is turn it into one of those films that just cater to the gore-whores who don’t care about story. Which of course they won’t do, because WB will want to sell toys.

        1. Ok, explain how they could make Old Boy into a PG-13 movie without having to rewrite the script. And yes, if you write out the big reveal at the end of the movie *spoiler* the girl is his daughter */spoiler* then you have rewritten the script. They do not need to show the sex scene to imply that it happend; however, that is still a very adult theme that makes the movie worth of an R rating even if they do not show any nudity.

          Nobody said, well I don’t think they did, that getting rid of some violence would change the story. What I personally said is that it might change the impact it has on the audience. If Passion of Christ had only shown a whip flying in the air but never showing Christ’s back or the blood then it would have the same impact on the audience either way? I remain skeptical. Just as somebody brought up the alien coming out of the guys stomach had been shot in such a manner than it was implied rather than shown would also result in the same impact for both the audience and the actors that were in the scene? Sure it would not change the story, nobody is doubting that as far as I can see; however, it does change the impact the scenes have on the audience.

          They could have made Passion of Christ a G movie where it showed Christ growing up, a small scene way off in the distance of three crosses, and final scene of a turned away boulder, but then the audience would not fully connect to what Christ went through prior to and being on the cross.

          1. It wouldn’t have made it a rated R film to imply that he had a phsycial relationship with a woman who turned out to be his own daughter. That wouldn’t get it an R. Adult themes are present in PG13 movies.

            And as someone who grew up in the church.. I have seen LOTS of depictions of the crusification of Christ and his tortures that he went through to properly convey the point without having to show the nail actually driven through his hand.

          2. I to grew up in the Church. A brief background of me is that I spent twenty years, from the time I was born to the age of 20, going to a Baptist church and I attended Christian (non-denominational) private schools all the way through high school. So, yes, I to have seen plenty of depictions of the crucifixion, but I still hold to the fact that it would not result in the same impact between showing the nails going through the hand as opposed to just showing a hammer swing. It’s one thing to read about it, just as it is another thing to hear about it, just as it is an entirely different thing to see it. Each of these would result in a different reaction from the audience. Take reality, which is going to have a greater reaction to an observer: hearing a gunshot or seeing a person get shot? One is going to remain embedded in your mind for a bunch longer period of time than the other. One is a much greater eye opener than the other. Both are horrible events, but the latter one is going to convey the truth of the situation much better than the other. May not be the best example, but it makes sense in my head.

Leave a Reply