Does/When/What Happens When Lana learns Clark's Secret?
Jack
Precrisis, nope. Post crisis, yes. Clark shared it with her before he
left Smallville to find himself." - Crisis FAQ
By strictly following the Post Crisis story line, Lana learns about
Clark's secret.
- Do you think this will eventually happen on Smallville?
- If so, at what point - the very end of the series or perhaps as
early as sometime next season (if the two aren't one and the same)?
- Since it's never been explored before and we know from Superman 3
and the post Crisis comics that Lana is still around and Clark still
has strong feelings for her (hence the huge diamond he made for her
[Annette O'Toole] from a chunk of coal in S3) why do you think they do
not get deeply involved?
Just curious as to what everyone thinks!
Jack
Jerome Jerinovitch
>
Because traditionally, Superhero comics were intended for children. Children
understand that there is male-female liking; but they do not understand sex
and love. So these issues were never explored very much.
As the demographic got older and times changed, Superman grew up to be some
guy who never had sex and whose virtue could shame Mother Theresa.
Presumably this was because Marvel and DC Comics' market research concluded
that most adult comic book buyers are presumed to be latent and/or closet
homosexuals and/or persons who have issues relating to male-female
relationships. So most Superheroes have no relationships with members of the
opposite sex.
In the (imaginary) real world, Superman is just some guy from another
planet, not The POPE or a celibate priest. So in reality he should be boning
every slut that comes down the pike, especially considering that the Yellow
Sun should have the effect of giving him super-testosterone and a
super-libido. Superman should be horny all the time, and thanks to his
super-penis, he should be more than able to satisfy any woman. After all, he
is THE MAN OF STEEL.
W. Blaine Dowler
> Presumably this was because Marvel and DC Comics' market research
> concluded that most adult comic book buyers are presumed to be latent
> and/or closet homosexuals and/or persons who have issues relating to
> male-female relationships. So most Superheroes have no relationships with
> members of the opposite sex.
That's a big assumption. I think the Comics Code Authority had a lot more
to do with it. Marvel and DC just couldn't discuss it, but it was
happening. (Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne shared an apartment with one bed
years before marriage, for example.)
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
"It was mentioned on CNN that the new prime number discovered recently
is four times bigger than the previous record."
- John Blasik.
Beach Runner
W. Blaine Dowler wrote:
> Jerome Jerinovitch wrote:
>
>
>>Presumably this was because Marvel and DC Comics' market research
>>concluded that most adult comic book buyers are presumed to be latent
>>and/or closet homosexuals and/or persons who have issues relating to
>>male-female relationships. So most Superheroes have no relationships with
>>members of the opposite sex.
>
>
> That's a big assumption. I think the Comics Code Authority had a lot more
> to do with it. Marvel and DC just couldn't discuss it, but it was
> happening. (Hank Pym and Janet Van Dyne shared an apartment with one bed
> years before marriage, for example.)
>
One obvious issue no one seems to brought up. Seriously.
Since an orgasm is involuntary, wouldn't Superman's orgasms destroy any
human?
JRWOLFESTR
well..he is faster than a speeding bullett...most women allegedly don't like
that
Bozo the Evil Klown
>
>Since an orgasm is involuntary, wouldn't Superman's orgasms destroy any
>human?
In "The Dark Knight Strikes Again," there's a scene where the child of Superman
and Wonder Woman is asking about sex. Kal-El says "*Never with humans- they're
too fragile."
http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
By Grabthar's Hammer, by Pollock's Putty Knife, by the sparkling, refreshing
Screwdriver of Smirnoff- YOU SHALL BE QUOTED!!!!!!
Gary
news:71%pd.352085$Pl.267811@pd7tw1no...
> Jerome Jerinovitch wrote:
>
>> Presumably this was because Marvel and DC Comics' market research
>> concluded that most adult comic book buyers are presumed to be latent
>> and/or closet homosexuals and/or persons who have issues relating to
>> male-female relationships. So most Superheroes have no relationships with
>> members of the opposite sex.
Batman? Kim Basenger...
Gary.
Gilberto Simpson
>
> One obvious issue no one seems to brought up. Seriously.
>
> Since an orgasm is involuntary, wouldn't Superman's orgasms destroy any
> human?
Isn't that why he had to lose his powers in Superman II???
W. Blaine Dowler
> One obvious issue no one seems to brought up. Seriously.
Check the FAQ for a link to "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex."
> Since an orgasm is involuntary, wouldn't Superman's orgasms destroy any
> human?
Orgasms are involuntary among humans and other life that evolved on Earth.
We know nothing about the life that evolved elsewhere. Similarly, we have
no way of knowing if Superman's strength is limited to his voluntary
muscles or not.
--
- Blaine
http://www.bureau42.com
ICQ: 24893016
"Gentlemen, e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 is surely true, it is absolutely
paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it
means. But we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be truth."
- Benjamin Peirce, 19th century Harvard mathematician.
curlyQlink
"Gary" <g...@g.com> wrote in message
news:5T6qd.24539$up1....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
A brief fling. His one true love was Robin.
curlyQlink
"Jack" <ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cgsfq0dql05ekgivn...@4ax.com...
> "3.2. Did Lana know the secret in the comics?
>
> Precrisis, nope. Post crisis, yes. Clark shared it with her before he
> left Smallville to find himself." - Crisis FAQ
>
>
> By strictly following the Post Crisis story line, Lana learns about
> Clark's secret.
>
>
> - Do you think this will eventually happen on Smallville?
And will this finally stop Lana's whining?
Sirius Black
>
> A brief fling. His one true love was Robin.
>
ROBIN, OH GAWD, ROBIN. I am your Mentor, not your pedophile! Now let me pull
off your stockings. OH GAWD! your little green tights, and your slinky
yellow curve-hugging tank-top! Your skin is so soft, like a young boy's! You
are so soft and tender and warm. I love you Robin...
BATMAN
In his capacity as Mentor to the hapless orphan DICK Grayson.
Glenn Simpson
Oh, hey, you pointed out the possibility of Batman and Robin being gay
lovers. That is SO ORIGINAL! NOBODY ever thought to say that before!
After all, no man ever had a platonic relationship with a young boy
before. They're ALL GAY!
Sid Loomis
young boy before. They're ALL GAY!>>
Not GAY, Pedophilia. Pedophiles are not gay, they are pedophiles.
A Platonic relationship is you take the kid to the park to play ball. You
take the kid to the movies. You take the kid to Amusement Parks, Zoos,
museums, etc. All Public Places. Then you return the kid to his home, where
his parents or caretakers know exactly what you did and where you went, etc.
A Pedophile relationship starts with an Adult telling a minor: "Don't Tell
Anyone About Our Little Secret" and getting dressed together in tights to
have secret identities and a special place (The BATCAVE), and engaging in
lots of physical activities involving close physical contact, etc. Living
together, presumably working out together, perhaps showering together after
the workouts. Maybe any single one of these things is not Pedophile, but add
them all up, and would you want your son doing them with the next door
neighbor??
If you would, then I feel sorry for any kids that you might have (molested).
Glenn Simpson
> "Glenn Simpson" <> After all, no man ever had a platonic relationship with a
> young boy before. They're ALL GAY!>>
>
> Not GAY, Pedophilia. Pedophiles are not gay, they are pedophiles.
Well, most people, in regards to Batman and Robin, seem to mix them
up.
> A Platonic relationship is you take the kid to the park to play ball. You
> take the kid to the movies. You take the kid to Amusement Parks, Zoos,
> museums, etc. All Public Places. Then you return the kid to his home, where
> his parents or caretakers know exactly what you did and where you went, etc.
> A Pedophile relationship starts with an Adult telling a minor: "Don't Tell
> Anyone About Our Little Secret" and getting dressed together in tights to
> have secret identities and a special place (The BATCAVE), and engaging in
> lots of physical activities involving close physical contact, etc. Living
> together, presumably working out together, perhaps showering together after
> the workouts. Maybe any single one of these things is not Pedophile, but add
> them all up, and would you want your son doing them with the next door
> neighbor??
>
> If you would, then I feel sorry for any kids that you might have (molested).
Yes, but as a presumably intelligent individual with a working
knowledge of the Batman mythos, you know that isn't the case here.
Within the world they live in, what Batman is doing is mentoring a
young man and providing him with an outlet for dealing with the murder
of his parents.
(Not to mention stretching things to make your point, such as "close
physical contact" and "showering together").
There are any number of situations in comic books that don't work in
real life. Superman jumps off buildings and lets people shoot at him.
Is he insane? Suicidal? No, because he lives in a fictional universe
with different rules.
I just think there's enough ignorant people running around yukking it
up about the Batman/Gay/Pedophile thing without someone coming into a
comics newsgroup and acting like it's funny to bring it up yet again.
Al
yukking it up about the Batman/Gay/Pedophile thing without someone coming
into a comics newsgroup and acting like it's funny to bring it up yet
again.>>
You are entitled to your opinion. I believe that helping a young boy get
over the murder of his parents would be to send him to see a therapist and
into a support group; and to get him involved in something life-affirming,
like working at a Youth Camp or as a Volunteer Forest Ranger during the
summer months. There are literally hundreds of children whose parents are
murdered every year. I hope none of them is being mentored by some creepy
millionaire who fights crime as a vigilante.
Having someone who is traumatized hunt other murderous psychopaths is not my
idea of therapy for a young boy. The Pedophile angle is not just ignorant,
it is what it is. In any universe, the Batman and Robin relationship is
abnormal for many many reasons. If you want to look at it from your
perspective, that is up to you, but do not expect the rest of the world to
turn a blind eye towards the obvious.
Glenn Simpson
> "Glenn Simpson" > I just think there's enough ignorant people running around
> yukking it up about the Batman/Gay/Pedophile thing without someone coming
> into a comics newsgroup and acting like it's funny to bring it up yet
> again.>>
>
> You are entitled to your opinion. I believe that helping a young boy get
> over the murder of his parents would be to send him to see a therapist and
> into a support group; and to get him involved in something life-affirming,
> like working at a Youth Camp or as a Volunteer Forest Ranger during the
> summer months. There are literally hundreds of children whose parents are
> murdered every year. I hope none of them is being mentored by some creepy
> millionaire who fights crime as a vigilante.
In real life, they aren't. Comic books aren't real life.
> Having someone who is traumatized hunt other murderous psychopaths is not my
> idea of therapy for a young boy. The Pedophile angle is not just ignorant,
> it is what it is. In any universe, the Batman and Robin relationship is
> abnormal for many many reasons. If you want to look at it from your
> perspective, that is up to you, but do not expect the rest of the world to
> turn a blind eye towards the obvious.
So is Robin Hood a gay thief? He steals from people, hides in the
woods, wears tights, hangs out with a bunch of guys, etc?
I find it hard to believe you find the distinction between
literary/comic-book motivations and real-life motivations difficult to
understand.
Al
hides in the woods, wears tights, hangs out with a bunch of guys, etc?
>
> I find it hard to believe you find the distinction between literary
comic-book motivations and real-life motivations difficult to understand.>>
I find it interesting that you are so defensive about it.
The practical conventions of reality and common sense are not suspended when
you open a book to read fiction. If you want to pretend and live in your
particular fantasy world because it helps you enjoy the comic books more,
that is your problem.
I look at Batman as a pretty fucked up superhero. Having a ward back in the
1930s is one thing, but nowadays society and reality have changed. If you do
not want to acknowledge the world that you live in, that is your problem.
I think that the original Robin who grew up to become Nightwing in the 1960s
was a good transition for the character of the 1930s. Then came two or three
more Robins, and now it is weird. I have not met four Orphans whose parents
were murdered and who all had gymnastic skills and the desire to avenge
their parents' death. One Robin was OK, 3 or 4 Robins is pedophilia.
JRWOLFESTR
in the comics ..Lana ends up marring Pete Ross
Bozo the Evil Klown
Just *try* to sell a TV show today where a man dresses in tights and goes out
at night with a young boy in green panties.
Bozo the Evil Klown
>You are entitled to your opinion. I believe that helping a young boy get
>over the murder of his parents would be to send him to see a therapist and
>into a support group; and to get him involved in something life-affirming,
>like working at a Youth Camp or as a Volunteer Forest Ranger during the
>summer months. There are literally hundreds of children whose parents are
>murdered every year. I hope none of them is being mentored by some creepy
>millionaire who fights crime as a vigilante.
>
>Having someone who is traumatized hunt other murderous psychopaths is not my
>idea of therapy for a young boy. The Pedophile angle is not just ignorant,
>it is what it is. In any universe, the Batman and Robin relationship is
>abnormal for many many reasons. If you want to look at it from your
>perspective, that is up to you, but do not expect the rest of the world to
>turn a blind eye towards the obvious.
Did anyone catch the two-hour show on the history of comic books on the History
Channel? Stan Lee explained how he *loathed* this nonsense about superheroes
with teen sidekicks: "They'd be arrested just on the child-endangerment laws
alone!"
Glenn Simpson
> "Glenn Simpson" > So is Robin Hood a gay thief? He steals from people,
> hides in the woods, wears tights, hangs out with a bunch of guys, etc?
> >
> Maybe he is. Why not?? He can do what ever he wants as a character.
No, I'm not talking about changing the character. I'm talking about
the character AS PRESENTED. You're saying that the classic Robin Hood
was OBVIOUSLY a homosexual due to his behavior.
> > I find it hard to believe you find the distinction between literary
> comic-book motivations and real-life motivations difficult to understand.>>
>
> I find it interesting that you are so defensive about it.
Because you're basically saying Batman is a bad person. Which,
considering he's been one of my favorite characters all my life, is a
bit insulting. Not to mention keeping a theory alive that causes
others to continue to ridicule our hobby.
> The practical conventions of reality and common sense are not suspended when
> you open a book to read fiction. If you want to pretend and live in your
> particular fantasy world because it helps you enjoy the comic books more,
> that is your problem.
It's not a problem; it's suspension of disbelief. Do you think a man
can fly?
> I look at Batman as a pretty fucked up superhero. Having a ward back in the
> 1930s is one thing, but nowadays society and reality have changed. If you do
> not want to acknowledge the world that you live in, that is your problem.
I acknowledge the world I live in; you just don't acknowledge the
world Batman lives in.
> I think that the original Robin who grew up to become Nightwing in the 1960s
> was a good transition for the character of the 1930s. Then came two or three
> more Robins, and now it is weird. I have not met four Orphans whose parents
> were murdered and who all had gymnastic skills and the desire to avenge
> their parents' death. One Robin was OK, 3 or 4 Robins is pedophilia.
I have not met a guy who dresses in a red cape with an S on his cape
and flies, but I can believe it happens in a fictional universe.
The Black Guardian
> to get back on track
>
> in the comics ..Lana ends up marring Pete Ross
Who? ;)
Seriously though, I think they should have gone this route in Smallville.
--
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Larry
talking about the character AS PRESENTED. You're saying that the classic
Robin Hood was OBVIOUSLY a homosexual due to his behavior.
>
denial of your own Molestation.
I never mentioned Robin Hood at all. You claimed that if my suggestion that
Batman had serious issues regarding pedophile tendencies because he has had
4 Robin wards who were all young boys, that meant that Robin Hood was Gay.
How you got from Batman to Robin Hood is something that you need to discuss
with your therapist. The bottom line is that there is no point in continuing
this discussion with you. Get help.
Larry
about superheroes with teen sidekicks: "They'd be arrested just on the
child-endangerment laws alone!"
>
What kind of caretaker would expose pre-teenage and teenage boys (or girls)
to serial killers and the typical psychotic super-villains?? Not just the
danger alone, but consider the psychological harm that would do to any
normal child!
Glenn Simpson
> Al posts:
>
> >You are entitled to your opinion. I believe that helping a young boy get
> >over the murder of his parents would be to send him to see a therapist and
> >into a support group; and to get him involved in something life-affirming,
> >like working at a Youth Camp or as a Volunteer Forest Ranger during the
> >summer months. There are literally hundreds of children whose parents are
> >murdered every year. I hope none of them is being mentored by some creepy
> >millionaire who fights crime as a vigilante.
> >
> >Having someone who is traumatized hunt other murderous psychopaths is not my
> >idea of therapy for a young boy. The Pedophile angle is not just ignorant,
> >it is what it is. In any universe, the Batman and Robin relationship is
> >abnormal for many many reasons. If you want to look at it from your
> >perspective, that is up to you, but do not expect the rest of the world to
> >turn a blind eye towards the obvious.
>
> Did anyone catch the two-hour show on the history of comic books on the History
> Channel? Stan Lee explained how he *loathed* this nonsense about superheroes
> with teen sidekicks: "They'd be arrested just on the child-endangerment laws
> alone!"
And actually, I don't have a problem with cracks about that. I'd
rather Batman be considered (incorrectly) as someone who puts these
kids in harm's way than someone who diddles them.
Jack
>to get back on track
>
>in the comics ..Lana ends up marring Pete Ross
Hey, nice to know someone read the original post. Sheesh!
How do you predict Lana reacts when she finds out? Like Clark's
nightmare or differently? I wonder if TPTB at WB are trying to sort
that out as well.
Does it happen this season?
Jack
Xenophile
> "Glenn Simpson"
> No, I'm not talking about changing the character. I'm talking about
> the character AS PRESENTED. You're saying that the classic
> Robin Hood was OBVIOUSLY a homosexual due to his behavior.
> Man, you must be on some heavy drugs or involved in serious post-traumatic
> denial of your own Molestation.
And you have a weird obsession with molestation and pedophilia. I mean,
damn, you even capitalize the "M". Don't get me wrong; I like sex. A lot.
I've even made posts suggesting that more respect is due the sexuality of
teenagers. But I don't try injecting pedophilia and molestation everywhere
I think that I can find an excuse to do so. Why do you do this?
> I never mentioned Robin Hood at all. You claimed that if my suggestion
that
> Batman had serious issues regarding pedophile tendencies because he has
had
> 4 Robin wards who were all young boys, that meant that Robin Hood was Gay.
No. He suggested that if "Batman wears tights and hangs out with a boy in
tights" makes Batman a pedophile, then "Robin Hood wears tights and hangs
out with a bunch of Merry Men" must make Robin Hood gay. If not the second,
then why the first? Of course, the authors who created these two characters
did not make them either gay or pedophilac, so they are neither. You might
as well claim that James Bond is an Eskimo. Well, not unless Ian Fleming or
EON Productions says that he is, and they do not.
> How you got from Batman to Robin Hood is something that you need to
discuss
> with your therapist. The bottom line is that there is no point in
continuing this
> discussion with you. Get help.
You get help. There is a word for the condition of not being able to tell
the difference between reality and fantasy: psychosis.
Xenophile
news:S12rd.1078$Dm2...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Glenn Simpson"
>> So is Robin Hood a gay thief? He steals from people, hides
>> in the woods, wears tights, hangs out with a bunch of guys, etc?
> Maybe he is. Why not?? He can do what ever he wants as a character.
No, he can't. He can do whatever *the writer* wants him to do.
>> I find it hard to believe you find the distinction between literary
>> comic-book motivations and real-life motivations difficult to
understand.
> I find it interesting that you are so defensive about it.
Well, you come in here saying stuff that wasn't funny back when
what's-his-face was publishing _Seduction of the Innocent_, and still isn't.
You are also calling a popular fictional character a sicko, when he isn't.
You also seem to have trouble telling the difference between real and
make-believe, and that creeps a lot of people out.
> The practical conventions of reality and common sense are not suspended
when
> you open a book to read fiction.
Um, yes they are. Or am I required to belive that Tarzan, Doc Savage,
Batman, etc. are real people? And if I know that they are not real, can I
still read about them? The answers are no and yes, respectively.
> If you want to pretend and live in your particular fantasy world because
it helps
> you enjoy the comic books more, that is your problem.
If you are unable to tell the difference between the real workd and a comic
book, that is your problem.
> I look at Batman as a pretty fucked up superhero. Having a ward back in
the
> 1930s is one thing, but nowadays society and reality have changed. If you
do
> not want to acknowledge the world that you live in, that is your problem.
If you do not want to acknowledge that the world you live in is (probably,
I'm starting to wonder) not the same as the world that Justice Leaugers live
in, then that is your problem.
> I think that the original Robin who grew up to become Nightwing in the
1960s
> was a good transition for the character of the 1930s. Then came two or
three
> more Robins, and now it is weird.
Weirder than Kryptonite, or BatMight?
> I have not met four Orphans whose parents were murdered and who all had
> gymnastic skills and the desire to avenge their parents' death.
I have yet to meet even one Kryptonian. Or English lord raised by apes. Or
Hobbit. Or Elf. Or college student with a web-themed suit and radioactive
spider bite. Or Pretty Sailor-Suited Warrior of Love and Justice. The list
goes on. Gee, maybe that's why they call it "fiction."
> One Robin was OK, 3 or 4 Robins is pedophilia.
No, doing sex stuff with 3 or 4 Robins would be pedophilia. Not fighting
crime with them. IF THERE IS NO SEX STUFF, THERE IS NO PEDOPHILIA. This is
so overwhelmingly self-evident that I suspect that you know it already, and
are just screwing with us.
Everett Dyson
xenoph...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/6/04 11:40 PM:
>
>> The practical conventions of reality and common sense are not suspended
> when
>> you open a book to read fiction.
>
> Um, yes they are. Or am I required to belive that Tarzan, Doc Savage,
> Batman, etc. are real people? And if I know that they are not real, can I
> still read about them? The answers are no and yes, respectively.
>
>
Ahhh...no...
If I am reading a Batman story, and Batman jumps out of the Batmobile and
flies throught the air, my response is going to be "what the hell?" While I
will accept that Supes can fly (because it is established that he can, and
*sort of( why), I won't accept it for Batman without a logical or
psuedo-logical explanation, at the very least something which fits in the
context of the story.
When Dall pulled that crap that Pam had dreamed an entire season, I was
furious. That was simply poor storytelling. Instead, they could have done
a little work, had her have a nervous breakdown (unknoiwn to the audience,
at first) so that we would begin to doubt some of what we were seeing, and
have her wake up one morning with J.R. smiling from the other side of the
bed. ***Then,*** when she woke up screaming with Booby at her side,
apparently alive, we could have at least said that there was some kind of
logical frame to the whole thing. As it was, nothing in the futrue ever
really had to make sense, and they lost viewers.
I don't think Doc Savage is real, but I better not see a story where he
flies through time, or one where Superman uses his odor-exuding power, at
least not without some explanation.
Ev
David Johnston
<everet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>in article ztSdnRKGZez...@comcast.com, Xenophile at
>xenoph...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/6/04 11:40 PM:
>
>
>>
>>> The practical conventions of reality and common sense are not suspended
>> when
>>> you open a book to read fiction.
>>
>> Um, yes they are. Or am I required to belive that Tarzan, Doc Savage,
>> Batman, etc. are real people? And if I know that they are not real, can I
>> still read about them? The answers are no and yes, respectively.
>>
>>
>
>
>Ahhh...no...
>
>If I am reading a Batman story, and Batman jumps out of the Batmobile and
>flies throught the air, my response is going to be "what the hell?"
That has nothing to do with the practical conventions of reality and
common sense though. It just has to do with Batman not being capable
of flight, and suddenly giving him that power screwing up who the
character has been established as being.
BucketButt
I think that's Everett's point: Once a fictional character is established,
it's foolish to make changes willy-nilly. We as fans accept the
idea that Superman has a known set of superpowers; we also accept
the idea that Batman has no superpowers but does have a combination of
physical fitness, training, experience and (again, known) technology to
draw upon. If Superman suddenly starts telepathically communicating with
sea creatures, the writers had better explain just when and how he
developed this new ability; if Batman begins flying, we're going to want
to know how he did it, and the writers had better have a convincing
explanation. Suspension of disbelief, once established, can't be
stretched and twisted indefinitely.
Back in the Silver Age, DC's writers and editors often played
fast-and-loose with its characters -- Superman became much more powerful,
Batman seemed able to come up with new super-technology on a moment's
notice, and all of the DC heroes had fantastic experiences that previously
(as in "last month's issue") would have been impossible. Eventually the
characters became predictably invincible and boring, which made Marvel's
somewhat-flawed characters seem that much more interesting. As DC lost
their near-monopoly on the action-hero comic category, the writers and
editors became desperate (meaning they introduced more stupid
inconsistencies in order to spice up their titles), eventually weaving
such a web of contradictions that neither DC nor the readers could keep
things straight. DC finally gave up on its entire fictional universe,
resorted to the "Crisis On infinite Earths", and subsequently rebooted
everything.
The same thing could be happening today with the inconsistencies
introduced with every Superman movie, cartoon and live-action TV
series, except for one thing: it is accepted by the majority of
serious fans that ONLY the comics are "official". This may confuse
someone who seriously tries to reconcile Smallville with any other TV
series or motion picture, but most viewers probably care more about
enjoying the story than spotting inconsistencies in cross-series
continuity -- and they're used to having Hollywood make silly changes, so
they don't worry about the inconsistencies.
--
Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA
Amateur curmudgeon, equal opportunity annoyer
When you see Dan Rather, you CBS
Stereophile22
>flies through time, or one where Superman uses his odor-exuding power, at
>least not without some explanation.
>
interesting concept. Superman with super b.o. ;)
Rivervillagelady
>From: stereo...@aol.com (Stereophile22)
>Date: 12/10/2004 6:22 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041210182213...@mb-m16.aol.com>
Well, not necessarily b.o. ... but a super-pheremone episode might be
interesting- getting "all" of the smallville high girls plus the usual trio...
sniffing around after Clark. Isn't he about the 'right age' to start exuding a
bit of sexuality instead of the usual awkward pre-teen shyness.
It might even make a bit of quirky sense-- if pheremones do have the effect
that some scientists suggest of identifying mates with the best package of
survival traits. Out of the general run of Smallville high boys, Clark would
probably have the best pheremones available. That and I would enjoy a scene
where Clark walks into Lex's riche-riche surroundings and Lex's gold-digger of
the (week?) leaves his arm for Clark's with out any explanation.
W. Blaine Dowler
> It might even make a bit of quirky sense-- if pheremones do have the
> effect that some scientists suggest of identifying mates with the best
> package of survival traits.
Pheremones also tend to be species specific.
--
- Blaine
If anyone here believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.
Todd
> - Since it's never been explored before and we know from Superman 3
>and the post Crisis comics that Lana is still around and Clark still
>has strong feelings for her (hence the huge diamond he made for her
>[Annette O'Toole] from a chunk of coal in S3) why do you think they do
>not get deeply involved?
I'm not sure, but I think pre-Crisis, Lana was Clark's girlfriend, not
just his infatuation. Also, in the years just before the Crisis,
Clark and Lana were once again dating. Byrne decided that Lois was
literally made for Clark, and brought back the romance between them.
By the way, Lana was created because it would be silly to have Clark
and Lois know each other from childhood, and he needed a girlfriend
during his adolescent years.
But, as I said, Lois was literally made for Clark.
As for Lana learning about Clark's powers, I have no clue and no
particular opinion. But I would like Lex and Chloe to find out or be
told. Chloe can create the idea of Superman, and maybe even design
the costume, and Lex can have it made.
Lex: "I am going to destroy you, Superman. Oh, by the way, there's
another dozen costumes for you."
robg...@bestweb.net
> I'm not sure, but I think pre-Crisis, Lana was Clark's girlfriend,
not
> just his infatuation. Also, in the years just before the Crisis,
> Clark and Lana were once again dating. Byrne decided that Lois was
> literally made for Clark, and brought back the romance between them.
> By the way, Lana was created because it would be silly to have Clark
> and Lois know each other from childhood, and he needed a girlfriend
> during his adolescent years.
> But, as I said, Lois was literally made for Clark.
No, Lois was made for Superman. Clark was made for Superman, too.
The Black Guardian
Except Clark and Superman are one and the same. She just didn't know it for
ages. So, technically, Lois was literally made for Clark... she just didn't
realize it.
robg...@bestweb.net
> >> But, as I said, Lois was literally made for Clark.
> > No, Lois was made for Superman.
> Except Clark and Superman are one and the same. She just didn't know
it for
> ages. So, technically, Lois was literally made for Clark... she just
didn't
> realize it.
> --
And neither did her creators. Look, when I wrote "made", I meant it
literally. At the time the Lois Lane character was invented, there was
no intention for her ever to know who Superman was. So are you saying
that her finding out was the inexorable working out of things set in
motion by the creation of the characters?
Robert
The Black Guardian
>>>> But, as I said, Lois was literally made for Clark.
>>>
>>> No, Lois was made for Superman.
>>
>> Except Clark and Superman are one and the same. She just didn't know
>> it for ages. So, technically, Lois was literally made for Clark... she just
>> didn't realize it.
>
> literally. At the time the Lois Lane character was invented, there was
> no intention for her ever to know who Superman was. So are you saying
> that her finding out was the inexorable working out of things set in
> motion by the creation of the characters?
Absolutely... not that it's relevant. Whether or not there was ever any
intention for her to find out Clark=Superman, Clark is still Superman.
Rivervillagelady
>Date: 12/14/2004 11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
>Rivervillagelady wrote:
>
>> It might even make a bit of quirky sense-- if pheremones do have the
>> effect that some scientists suggest of identifying mates with the best
>> package of survival traits.
>
>Pheremones also tend to be species specific.
>
>
True, that leaves the alternate questions, then:
What is the result of packing alien pheremones?
Or, what's the effect of not packing the "human" pheremones that everyone else
would be accustomed to, whether they are conscious of it or not?
-Diane
W. Blaine Dowler
> Or, what's the effect of not packing the "human" pheremones that everyone
> else would be accustomed to, whether they are conscious of it or not?
Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
--
- Blaine
The Church says the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I
have seen the shadow on the Moon, and I have more faith in a shadow
than in the Church.
- Ferdinand Magellan
Rivervillagelady
>From: "W. Blaine Dowler" fiz...@NOSPAMbureau42.com
>Message-id: <JcWwd.517115$Pl.145437@pd7tw1no>
>
>Rivervillagelady wrote:
>
>> Or, what's the effect of not packing the "human" pheremones that everyone
>> else would be accustomed to, whether they are conscious of it or not?
>
>Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
>
Actually, I was thinking of it from the reverse... not Clark's immunity to
other's pheremones, but the reaction of the other Smallville residents to his
lack of sub-consciously recognizable chemical / pheremonal signature.
Diane
The Black Guardian
>>> Or, what's the effect of not packing the "human" pheremones that everyone
>>> else would be accustomed to, whether they are conscious of it or not?
>>
>> Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
>
> Actually, I was thinking of it from the reverse... not Clark's immunity to
> other's pheremones, but the reaction of the other Smallville residents to his
> lack of sub-consciously recognizable chemical / pheremonal signature.
Kryptonians don't strike me as the sort that have pheromones.
JRWOLFESTR
he wasn't that immune
she turned on his heat vision
Rivervillagelady
>Date: 12/18/2004 11:03 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041218230358...@mb-m07.aol.com>
>
>Rivervillagelady wrote:
>>>> Or, what's the effect of not packing the "human" pheremones that everyone
>>>> else would be accustomed to, whether they are conscious of it or not?
>>>
>>> Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
>>
>> Actually, I was thinking of it from the reverse... not Clark's immunity to
>> other's pheremones, but the reaction of the other Smallville residents to
>his
>> lack of sub-consciously recognizable chemical / pheremonal signature.
>
>Kryptonians don't strike me as the sort that have pheromones.
>--
Agreed, I can totally see kryptonians engaging DNA adjustment to eliminate
such primitive bodily functions. lol.
But, my question's more on the lines of how Clark's human neighbors and class
mates would react to someone who showed up on their ... scent-radar ... as a
non-entity...pheremonally-challenged kryptonian?
-- Diane
Rivervillagelady
>Date: 12/19/2004 1:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041219134830...@mb-m16.aol.com>
>
>>Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
>
>he wasn't that immune
>
>she turned on his heat vision
>
I don't actually think you could really say that she "turned it on"...only that
she turned him on and that his natural reaction was his heat vision instead of
an erection.
But, what would that say about Clark's infatuation with Lana... when she never
aroused a heat vision response from him?
--Diane
David Johnston
(Rivervillagelady) wrote:
Pheromones have an effect, but the truth is, the primary sexual
stimulus for human beings is vision, because our eyes are so much
better than our noses. Unless someone was actively giving off an
offputting odor, we'd go with what they looked like.
Bozo the Evil Klown
>>
>>he wasn't that immune
>>
>>she turned on his heat vision
>>
>
>I don't actually think you could really say that she "turned it on"...only
>that
>she turned him on and that his natural reaction was his heat vision instead
>of
>an erection.
>
>But, what would that say about Clark's infatuation with Lana... when she
>never
>aroused a heat vision response from him?
She did, later in that episode.
*****
The Joker in the Eeeeeeevil Cabal Deck of Cards.
By Grabthar's Hammer, by Pollock's Putty Knife, by the sparkling, refreshing
Screwdriver of Smirnoff- YOU SHALL BE QUOTED!!!!!!
Rivervillagelady
>Date: 12/20/2004 3:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20041220150406...@mb-m29.aol.com>
>
>>>>Immunity to Krista Allen's character in "Heat" back in season two.
>>>
>>>he wasn't that immune
>>>
>>>she turned on his heat vision
>>>
>>
>>I don't actually think you could really say that she "turned it on"...only
>>that
>>she turned him on and that his natural reaction was his heat vision instead
>>of
>>an erection.
>>
>>But, what would that say about Clark's infatuation with Lana... when she
>>never
>>aroused a heat vision response from him?
>
>She did, later in that episode.
>
/oops. must have missed that
Micky DuPree
: From: evilk...@aol.comedy (Bozo the Evil Klown)
:: Rivervillagelady wrote:
::: But, what would that say about Clark's infatuation with Lana... when
::: she never aroused a heat vision response from him?
::
:: She did, later in that episode.
:
: /oops. must have missed that
He took it out on a scarecrow, essentially when Jonathan was trying to
coach him on how to practice safe masturbation.
-Micky
Bozo the Evil Klown
I meant the scene in the Talon when Clark is talking with Lana and his heat
vision fires up unexpectedly.
Micky DuPree
evilk...@aol.comedy (Bozo the Evil Klown) writes:
: Micky DuPree wrote:
:: rivervil...@aol.com (Rivervillagelady) writes:
::: From: evilk...@aol.comedy (Bozo the Evil Klown)
:::: Rivervillagelady wrote:
::::: But, what would that say about Clark's infatuation with Lana...
::::: when she never aroused a heat vision response from him?
::::
:::: She did, later in that episode.
:::
::: /oops. must have missed that
::
:: He took it out on a scarecrow, essentially when Jonathan was trying
:: to coach him on how to practice safe masturbation.
:
: I meant the scene in the Talon when Clark is talking with Lana and his
: heat vision fires up unexpectedly.
Oh right, convincing him that the incident in the classroom wasn't a
fluke. (He did say, "Lana" right before he torched the scarecrow,
though, so the incident in the Talon wasn't a fluke either.)
-Micky