Clarkie the sullen
glassman
unlikeable...
--
JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Cindy Sue
"glassman" <jksi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:MMHMh.62$8k7...@newsfe12.lga...
The whole episode was dull.
Anybody
<jksi...@aol.com> wrote:
> Well just when you thought that this "Superman" couldn't get any more
> unlikeable...
Tom Welling isn't playing "Superman" ... he's playing a parallel
universe character "Stupidman". ;-)
bf
> Well just when you thought that this "Superman" couldn't get any more
> unlikeable...
>
Yep, I really don't understand how SuperBaby can have any friends
anymore.
I feel sorry for Martha, that she still has to put up with that
overgrown baby.
She probably has to put baby powder on Clark's ass every night so
Clark doesn't get diaper rash.
Like I said, Clark needs a good smack. He voluntarily broke it off
with Lana. Lana begged him to come back and he refused. Then on the
eve of Lana's wedding day, Clark thinks he has the right to change his
mind and the whole world will bend to his will? And then when it
doesn't, he gets mad at the world.. What a SuperLoser.
Scotsman
> unlikeable...
Wasn't the point of this whole series: "A young Clark Kent struggles
to find his place in the world as he learns to harness his alien
powers for good and deals with the typical troubles of teenage life in
Smallvile."
He's not Superman yet.
Reasoned Insanity
"Scotsman" <ptwin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174665198.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Nor ever will be at this rate.
glassman
"Scotsman" <ptwin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1174665198.1...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I didn't know this series had any point at all? We grew up loving and
idolizing Superman, and this guy is just not likeable.
Anybody
<jksi...@aol.com> wrote:
> I didn't know this series had any point at all? We grew up loving and
> idolizing Superman, and this guy is just not likeable.
The point of Smallville was to simply cash in on what were then the
lastest fads of a "teen soap" (like Dawson's Creek) and "super heroes".
Edward McArdle
Anybody <any...@anywhere-anytime.com> wrote:
The whole point of Superman was that he would see something wrong, and
feel impelled to fix it. He might have had to learn not to make mistakes
along the way, but he was never a sullen teenager.
--
my URL,
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mcardle
Anybody
Edward McArdle <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
That's the point. Smallville is not Superman, and it was never intended
to be.
bf
> Wasn't the point of this whole series: "A young Clark Kent struggles
> to find his place in the world as he learns to harness his alien
> powers for good and deals with the typical troubles of teenage life in
> Smallvile."
>
> He's not Superman yet.
Many boys struggle to find their place in the world without being
total dickheads like Clark.
Clark and Lex used to be "like brothers" (Clark's own words, IIRC).
Now most people would not try to steal an ex-friend's bride on his
wedding day, especially if they dumped the bride 6 months earlier. Nor
would most people throw a temper tantrum like Clark. Clark
deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay bails.
He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
likable.
BC
"bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175630755.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 11:53 am, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Wasn't the point of this whole series: "A young Clark Kent struggles
>> to find his place in the world as he learns to harness his alien
>> powers for good and deals with the typical troubles of teenage life in
>> Smallvile."
>>
>> He's not Superman yet.
>
> Many boys struggle to find their place in the world without being
> total dickheads like Clark.
And when Clark reaches 50 he gets to do it all over again.
>
> Clark and Lex used to be "like brothers" (Clark's own words, IIRC).
> Now most people would not try to steal an ex-friend's bride on his
> wedding day, especially if they dumped the bride 6 months earlier. Nor
> would most people throw a temper tantrum like Clark. Clark
> deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay bails.
> He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
> That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
> power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
Shooting into the air is a regular occurence on the 4th of July around
here--stay inside.
>
> The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> likable.
Well Jimmy is likeable it seems and maybe Lois. Chloe is too nosey and
Clark is a liar, Lana too inflexible. Lex too dominating and power hungry.
>
Scotsman
> Many boys struggle to find their place in the world without being
> total dickheads like Clark.
And this would make for interesting television. The fact is, Superman
can be quite a vanilla character if not written properly. Another
posted noted that this is the "Dawson's Creek" version of Clark Kent.
This brings in the female audience.
> Clark and Lex used to be "like brothers" (Clark's own words, IIRC).
> Now most people would not try to steal an ex-friend's bride on his
> wedding day, especially if they dumped the bride 6 months earlier.
Yeah, with Lex being a complete angel, I can't imagine how this whole
thing transpired...
>Nor would most people throw a temper tantrum like Clark. Clark
> deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay bails.
Which he can fix in seven seconds.
> He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
> That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
> power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
Except that the barn isn't in a highly populated area. It'd have been
great after the credits sequence to see that picture embedded in Lex's
forehead.
> The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> likable.
Some people have turned the corner into blind hatred for the
character. I'm not there. I see the faults and the growth he's going
through to become Vanilla Superman.
Got a ? for you. In the "Superman 2" film, do you think Clark was a
"dickhead" by going back and beating up that guy in the diner?
bf
> On Apr 3, 4:05 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Many boys struggle to find their place in the world without being
> > total dickheads like Clark.
>
> And this would make for interesting television. The fact is, Superman
> can be quite a vanilla character if not written properly. Another
> posted noted that this is the "Dawson's Creek" version of Clark Kent.
> This brings in the female audience.
I agree that we don't necessarily want Clark to be a goody-goody
saint,
but does he have to be a total dickhead? I mean, trying to break up
someone's marriage isn't very cool, especially when he really doesn't
even want the bride (Lana). I mean, it's total BS that he loves her.
Clark is obviously very confused inside. I think he just wants Lana to
be miserable the rest of her life.
On a side note, I found this hillarious comment on another board:
I wish Shelby still had his super powers, so that he could bite Clark.
That would make me really happy. I don't know how anyone can possibly
root for Clana at this point. Seriously. I question the morality of
anyone who does. Whatever you think of Clark and Lana individually,
together they are like a cancer, destroying everything and everyone
around them.
>
> > Clark and Lex used to be "like brothers" (Clark's own words, IIRC).
> > Now most people would not try to steal an ex-friend's bride on his
> > wedding day, especially if they dumped the bride 6 months earlier.
>
> Yeah, with Lex being a complete angel, I can't imagine how this whole
> thing transpired...
What did Lex do to deserve his former best friend trying to lure Lana
away from the altar, particularly when Clark has no intentions of
commiting to Lana. None. Remember, he broke up with her months ago. He
only wants her now to prevent Lex from having her. So what did Lex do
to Clark or Lana to deserve this? Clark knows nothing of the doctor
murder. Clark presumably knows nothing about the miscarriage (whatever
"mystery" that would be).. In short, name one bad thing that Lex has
done to Lana that Clark knows about.
>
> >Nor would most people throw a temper tantrum like Clark. Clark
> > deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay bails.
>
> Which he can fix in seven seconds.
Not without buying new wood. You can't heat vision weld wood.
And did he fix it? No.
What happens when Martha or Lois walks up there and falls because our
Superbaby broke the railing.. or when the hay falls on them since
Clark broke the railing?
>
> > He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
> > That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
> > power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
>
> Except that the barn isn't in a highly populated area. It'd have been
> great after the credits sequence to see that picture embedded in Lex's
> forehead.
Yeah, great if you like evil Clark. Think about how far Clark can
throw things.. That picture went for miles at high speed. It was a
weapon.
>
> > The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> > likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> > likable.
>
> Some people have turned the corner into blind hatred for the
> character. I'm not there. I see the faults and the growth he's going
> through to become Vanilla Superman.
And other people blindly make excuses for everything bad Clark does.
When Clark does something good, I applaud him. It just doesn't happen
very often. BTW, when is he going to get off his ass and track down
the rest of the Zoners? Didn't he promise that months ago when Raya
died?
So far, he hasn't done jack. Chloe has spoon fed him a couple of
leads, but he's done nothing on his own. Looks like that Zoner in
Kasmir (mentioned in Episode 1 this season) is still killing people.
>
> Got a ? for you. In the "Superman 2" film, do you think Clark was a
> "dickhead" by going back and beating up that guy in the diner?
That moment was largely intended as comic relief. However, yes..
Superman should be a bigger man than that. I thought he was supposed
to be above "an eye for an eye" type justice. On the flip side, IIRC,
all he did was get food on the guy and slide him down the bar. I don't
think he hurt the guy badly like Smallville Clark does on a routine
basis. Smallville Clark would've thrown the guy through the roof and
broke his back, and then smiled while patting Shelby.
Christopher M.
>
> On a side note, I found this hillarious comment on another board:
> I wish Shelby still had his super powers, so that he could bite Clark.
> That would make me really happy. I don't know how anyone can possibly
> root for Clana at this point. Seriously. I question the morality of
> anyone who does. Whatever you think of Clark and Lana individually,
> together they are like a cancer, destroying everything and everyone
> around them.
water (Lana) + air (Clark) = cancer perhaps?
> Yeah, great if you like evil Clark. Think about how far Clark can
> throw things.. That picture went for miles at high speed. It was a
> weapon.
I wonder if we'll ever find out what happened to that picture. I hope not.
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
Christopher M.
news:CxWQh.1727$yL1.1560@trndny04...
>
> I wonder if we'll ever find out what happened to that picture. I hope not.
Actually, maybe there's more to this than meets the eye.
Maybe Lana will find the picture somewhere, like in her parents' graveyard.
Maybe she'll see the photo and think that Clark has turned his back on her.
And maybe she'll also find out that Lex killed her doctor on her wedding
day.
I wonder what Lana will do if she finds out these things? Go back to Byron
(Nocturne)? Go back to Paris maybe, and become Star Sapphire? Maybe she'll
come back from Paris and kick some butt. She couldn't kill anyone of course,
but she'd probably have a lot of angst against Clark and Lex. Maybe she
might attack them both at the same time. Maybe Lex and Clark might even be
friends again for a while--at least until Lana is no longer raising the
countryside.
Scotsman
> I agree that we don't necessarily want Clark to be a goody-goody
> saint,
> but does he have to be a total dickhead? I mean, trying to break up
> someone's marriage isn't very cool, especially when he really doesn't
> even want the bride (Lana). I mean, it's total BS that he loves her.
> Clark is obviously very confused inside. I think he just wants Lana to
> be miserable the rest of her life.
Eh, I don't think so. I'll buy the confused angle, but I don't think
Clark is as sociopath. That's Lex's territory.
> On a side note, I found this hillarious comment on another board:
> I wish Shelby still had his super powers, so that he could bite Clark.
> That would make me really happy. I don't know how anyone can possibly
> root for Clana at this point. Seriously. I question the morality of
> anyone who does. Whatever you think of Clark and Lana individually,
> together they are like a cancer, destroying everything and everyone
> around them.
I'm in agreement on the Clana thing...but this is the writers,
squeezing a bit more angst out, and puhing toward another season
before Clark takes his Icy Vacation.
> What did Lex do to deserve his former best friend trying to lure Lana
> away from the altar, particularly when Clark has no intentions of
> commiting to Lana. None. Remember, he broke up with her months ago. He
> only wants her now to prevent Lex from having her. So what did Lex do
> to Clark or Lana to deserve this? Clark knows nothing of the doctor
> murder. Clark presumably knows nothing about the miscarriage (whatever
> "mystery" that would be).. In short, name one bad thing that Lex has
> done to Lana that Clark knows about.
Clark knows who Lex really is. Heck, even Chloe knows. The GA knows.
> Not without buying new wood. You can't heat vision weld wood.
> And did he fix it? No.
> What happens when Martha or Lois walks up there and falls because our
> Superbaby broke the railing.. or when the hay falls on them since
> Clark broke the railing?
Wow. Sure he fixed it. Why wouldn't he?
>
>
> > > He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
> > > That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
> > > power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
>
> > Except that the barn isn't in a highly populated area. It'd have been
> > great after the credits sequence to see that picture embedded in Lex's
> > forehead.
>
> Yeah, great if you like evil Clark. Think about how far Clark can
> throw things.. That picture went for miles at high speed. It was a
Oh come on...it'd save the world a helluva lot of heartache if Lex
bought it right now.
> And other people blindly make excuses for everything bad Clark does.
> When Clark does something good, I applaud him. It just doesn't happen
> very often. BTW, when is he going to get off his ass and track down
> the rest of the Zoners? Didn't he promise that months ago when Raya
> died?
And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
insinuated about him.
Didn't the last ep mention he's been out looking for them and beating
the hell outta them? Wasn't the guy he fought in the last ep a Zoner?
> So far, he hasn't done jack. Chloe has spoon fed him a couple of
> leads, but he's done nothing on his own. Looks like that Zoner in
> Kasmir (mentioned in Episode 1 this season) is still killing people.
He can't be everywhre at once.
> That moment was largely intended as comic relief. However, yes..
> Superman should be a bigger man than that. I thought he was supposed
> to be above "an eye for an eye" type justice. On the flip side, IIRC,
> all he did was get food on the guy and slide him down the bar. I don't
> think he hurt the guy badly like Smallville Clark does on a routine
> basis. Smallville Clark would've thrown the guy through the roof and
> broke his back, and then smiled while patting Shelby.
He slid him down the bar after spinning him at superspeed, and the guy
got knocked out when he slammed his head into the jukebox.
Point is, even Superman is human on many levels.
If you've got screen caps of Clark smiling after taking down a bad
guy, point me in their direction. If anything, he's dour after his
feats of bravery.
BC
If he threw it hard enough it may come around and hit him in the back of the
head.
BC
Lana not kill? She's killed. One I remember is the Morgan Edge guy in the
Kent barn--she killed him with a pitchfork. There have been others--like
the vampire girl she vaporized and more.
BC
BC
> On Apr 4, 5:56 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree that we don't necessarily want Clark to be a goody-goody
>> saint,
>> but does he have to be a total dickhead? I mean, trying to break up
>> someone's marriage isn't very cool, especially when he really doesn't
>> even want the bride (Lana). I mean, it's total BS that he loves her.
>> Clark is obviously very confused inside. I think he just wants Lana to
>> be miserable the rest of her life.
>
> Eh, I don't think so. I'll buy the confused angle, but I don't think
> Clark is as sociopath. That's Lex's territory.
Lex isn't afraid to mix with people. He's hosted recptions at the museum
etc. Clark won't go to a hot tub party with two babes and he dumps out on
his dates with Lana--he crashes Lana's engagement party to make a scene,
insult his mother and beat up Clark--he misses his best friend's wedding to
blow up a spaceship--on red K he robs a bank for money--he then sits and
broods alone in the barn and that all sounds anti-social to me.
Also compare what Clark did to Lex at the engagement party to what Lex did
to the doctor in the crypt. Lex is threatened by the doctor and looses his
temper beating him and the doctor falls back aand hits his head and dies.
Clark breaks into the party, insults Lana and Martha, then throws Lex across
the room into a glass table shattering it. That could have killed Lex but
Lex didn't hit his head. There is no difference in motive or action except
that Lex was no threat to him where the doctor was threatening Lex with
blackmail. Yet no one is outraged--no one wants to call the cops and have
them pick up Clark. So it was the old Red K excuse again. If it was anyone
else on PCP they would certainly be in jail.
The writers could fix all this by just having Clark become good and then
showing us a Lex that is evil. Evil with no outs or excuses or it was an
accident or a mystery as to what he's done. As it is, I don't see much
difference in these two guys.
>
>> On a side note, I found this hillarious comment on another board:
>> I wish Shelby still had his super powers, so that he could bite Clark.
>> That would make me really happy. I don't know how anyone can possibly
>> root for Clana at this point. Seriously. I question the morality of
>> anyone who does. Whatever you think of Clark and Lana individually,
>> together they are like a cancer, destroying everything and everyone
>> around them.
>
> I'm in agreement on the Clana thing...but this is the writers,
> squeezing a bit more angst out, and puhing toward another season
> before Clark takes his Icy Vacation.
>
>> What did Lex do to deserve his former best friend trying to lure Lana
>> away from the altar, particularly when Clark has no intentions of
>> commiting to Lana. None. Remember, he broke up with her months ago. He
>> only wants her now to prevent Lex from having her. So what did Lex do
>> to Clark or Lana to deserve this? Clark knows nothing of the doctor
>> murder. Clark presumably knows nothing about the miscarriage (whatever
>> "mystery" that would be).. In short, name one bad thing that Lex has
>> done to Lana that Clark knows about.
>
>
> Clark knows who Lex really is. Heck, even Chloe knows. The GA knows.
But we don't know.
>
>
>> Not without buying new wood. You can't heat vision weld wood.
>> And did he fix it? No.
>> What happens when Martha or Lois walks up there and falls because our
>> Superbaby broke the railing.. or when the hay falls on them since
>> Clark broke the railing?
>
> Wow. Sure he fixed it. Why wouldn't he?
>>
>>
>> > > He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
>> > > That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
>> > > power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
>>
>> > Except that the barn isn't in a highly populated area. It'd have been
>> > great after the credits sequence to see that picture embedded in Lex's
>> > forehead.
>>
>> Yeah, great if you like evil Clark. Think about how far Clark can
>> throw things.. That picture went for miles at high speed. It was a
>
>
> Oh come on...it'd save the world a helluva lot of heartache if Lex
> bought it right now.
>
>
>> And other people blindly make excuses for everything bad Clark does.
>> When Clark does something good, I applaud him. It just doesn't happen
>> very often. BTW, when is he going to get off his ass and track down
>> the rest of the Zoners? Didn't he promise that months ago when Raya
>> died?
>
> And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
> insinuated about him.
Let's start convicting people based on insinuations.
>
> Didn't the last ep mention he's been out looking for them and beating
> the hell outta them? Wasn't the guy he fought in the last ep a Zoner?
Not sure that it was Zoners he beat up but Freaks. He said to Martha that
he had to kill the Zoners. With all that going on there must have been
enough material or ideas to make a few episodes but they don't want to show
Clark doing those deeds, so he can go on at a later date and say he hasn't
killed.
>
>> So far, he hasn't done jack. Chloe has spoon fed him a couple of
>> leads, but he's done nothing on his own. Looks like that Zoner in
>> Kasmir (mentioned in Episode 1 this season) is still killing people.
>
> He can't be everywhre at once.
They did a nice China bit probably near or in Vancouver but I doubt they
will do a Himalayas set to kill one Zoner. He will find his way to Clark to
save money.
Christopher M.
news:CzZQh.5155$u03....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Lana not kill? She's killed. One I remember is the Morgan Edge guy in
> the Kent barn--she killed him with a pitchfork. There have been
> others--like the vampire girl she vaporized and more.
> BC
Sorry, I meant to say that she couldn't kill Lex and Clark.
Christopher M.
>
> If he threw it hard enough it may come around and hit him in the back of
> the head.
That would be hilarious!
Anim8rFSK
"Scotsman" <ptwin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Got a ? for you. In the "Superman 2" film, do you think Clark was a
> "dickhead" by going back and beating up that guy in the diner?
Yes. I hate that moment with a fiery passion. I was *so* hoping it
would have been cut from the Donner version, but it's still there, and
worse than ever -- the entire world has forgotten everything that
happened in the entire movie, except for the people in that diner.
Anim8rFSK
"bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That moment was largely intended as comic relief. However, yes..
> Superman should be a bigger man than that. I thought he was supposed
> to be above "an eye for an eye" type justice. On the flip side, IIRC,
> all he did was get food on the guy and slide him down the bar. I don't
> think he hurt the guy badly like Smallville Clark does on a routine
> basis. Smallville Clark would've thrown the guy through the roof and
> broke his back, and then smiled while patting Shelby.
He shoves him 30 feet down a counter into a pinball machine hard enough
to break it. If that guy lives, he's crippled for life, and if he's not
cripples and doesn't bleed to death, he's definitely scarred for life.
BC
triumvirate. Even though in the Roman Triumvirates they did kill each
other, I think that in Smallville it is a given that Lex, Calrk and Lana are
the lead characters.
Scotsman
> "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> The writers could fix all this by just having Clark become good and then
> showing us a Lex that is evil. Evil with no outs or excuses or it was an
> accident or a mystery as to what he's done. As it is, I don't see much
> difference in these two guys.
Yes, we can thank the writers for extending this air of uncertainty.
Makes for more seasons. I don't understand the reluctance to put Lex
firmly into the "evil" category, unless it's beacuse of the female
audience that liked him so much in Seasons 1-2.
> > And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
> > insinuated about him.
>
> Let's start convicting people based on insinuations.
Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
to toss Lex into jail.
bf
> Eh, I don't think so. I'll buy the confused angle, but I don't think
> Clark is as sociopath. That's Lex's territory.
Look at what Clark did in "Splinter" when he thought his parents were
spilling his secret and when he thought he saw Lex and Lana kissing.
What was his reaction? KILL THEM.
In Crimson, even after the Red K wore off, what did Clark do? He made
breaking up Lex and Lana his highest priority. More important than
rounding up all the murderous Zoners that he let loose.
How did Clark deal with the grief of killing his sibling? Go on a
violent crime spree.
Has Lex ever done anything that extreme? Who was the better husband..
Lex (to Lana) or Clark (to Alicia)? Lex is clearly the better husband.
Clark tampers a crime scene and convinces the sheriff to arrest his
wife with shaky "evidence" before even talking to his wife. Then Clark
abandons his wife to her death. In contrast, Lex protects Lana and
actually gives her love and affection. Clark never gave Lana love and
affection beyond 2 weeks.. And I'm talking about beyond sex. Clark was
cold to Lana the entire time they were dating and lied to her about
everything. He also took advantage of Lana's overly forgiven nature
and abused her.
>
> Clark knows who Lex really is. Heck, even Chloe knows. The GA knows
I've asked this before. What exactly does Clark and everyone else
"know" about Lex. As viewers, we know Lex's destiny. If you don't know
the future, what do these characters really "know" about Lex that is
so bad.
All we get is BS about "oh, beware of Lex, he has a dark side".
When we look at what the characters have actually done on this show,
Clark's dark side is clearly more evil and twisted. Lex hasn't been a
perfect angel, but Clark is much worse.
>
> Wow. Sure he fixed it. Why wouldn't he?
I don't think he did. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think he
broke the railing and then just walked out for a good cry and left it
broken.
> > > Except that the barn isn't in a highly populated area. It'd have been
> > > great after the credits sequence to see that picture embedded in Lex's
> > > forehead.
Wrong, there's a house across the street. There's plenty of neighbors
nearby. The immigrant walked to the Kent farm pretty quick from
McNamara's farm. When Clark tossed that picture, it went for miles. It
could've easily reached "downtown" Smallville.
Your remark about Lex confirms that you like an evil Clark.
>
> > Yeah, great if you like evil Clark. Think about how far Clark can
> > throw things.. That picture went for miles at high speed. It was a
>
> Oh come on...it'd save the world a helluva lot of heartache if Lex
> bought it right now.
You are using the basis that Superman is always good and Lex is always
evil. This story is different. Most of the time, Lex is on the good
side, and Clark is maybe 50/50 at best. Lex is good more often than
Clark , although neither is perfect. It's not black and white on this
verson of Superman.
>
> > And other people blindly make excuses for everything bad Clark does.
> > When Clark does something good, I applaud him. It just doesn't happen
> > very often. BTW, when is he going to get off his ass and track down
> > the rest of the Zoners? Didn't he promise that months ago when Raya
> > died?
>
> And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
> insinuated about him.
Yes, I ignore all the insinuations about Lex like people just saying
he's "dark" when for the most part, he's had everyone's good will at
heart, including Clark, the friend that abandoned him years ago. How
he continues to put up with all Clark's shit and accusations and tries
to be Clark's friend is beyond me. How many times has Lex caught Clark
destroying his property, stealing his property, trespassing, etc and
not turned Clark into the authorities. Clark should be thankful Lex is
so forgiving.
>
> Didn't the last ep mention he's been out looking for them and beating
> the hell outta them? Wasn't the guy he fought in the last ep a Zoner?
Yes, the last episode was a change. He was finally starting to round
up bad guys, although I think they were just human crime figures in
metropolis. Yes, that was a step in the right direction from his
normal activity of crying in the barn all day because he feels sorry
for himself.
Let's see if he continues to do that in future episodes.. You are
right, last episode he was generally good and more heroic than he
normally is. IIRC, he even resisted the urge to immediately accuse Lex
of being behind the whole thing.
>
> > So far, he hasn't done jack. Chloe has spoon fed him a couple of
> > leads, but he's done nothing on his own. Looks like that Zoner in
> > Kasmir (mentioned in Episode 1 this season) is still killing people.
>
> He can't be everywhre at once.
He's had about 6 months to go down to Kasmir and take care of a Zoner
that they KNEW was there. Instead, he focuses on breaking up Lex's
wedding.
It's a good thing that most of the Zoners are idiots and seek Clark
out.
It's a good thing that Titan happened to be fighting in Metropolis.
As I recall, Clark has only made 1 trip out of Smallville/Metropolis
to attempt to track down a Zoner (bone sucking guy).. Maybe I forgot
one, but for the most part, he just sits there and waits for them to
come to him, just as GA said.
>
> > That moment was largely intended as comic relief. However, yes..
> > Superman should be a bigger man than that. I thought he was supposed
> > to be above "an eye for an eye" type justice. On the flip side, IIRC,
> > all he did was get food on the guy and slide him down the bar. I don't
> > think he hurt the guy badly like Smallville Clark does on a routine
> > basis. Smallville Clark would've thrown the guy through the roof and
> > broke his back, and then smiled while patting Shelby.
>
> He slid him down the bar after spinning him at superspeed, and the guy
> got knocked out when he slammed his head into the jukebox.
> Point is, even Superman is human on many levels.
>
You are right.. I hadn't watched Superman 2 in about 20 years, so I
forgot the exact scene.. Yes, I agree with you, that was excessive. It
was also vindictive, since Clark deliberately went in their to pick a
fight and hurt the guy. Not very heroic at all.
> If you've got screen caps of Clark smiling after taking down a bad
> guy, point me in their direction. If anything, he's dour after his
> feats of bravery.
After he blew up the dog catchers, he sat there smiling while he
petted Shelby. The dogcatchers were powerless and only commited a
relatively mild crime (robbing grocery stores).. yet Clark thought
they deserved to be executed. Ironic, considering that Clark commited
his own crime spree which was far worse .
BC
If they are defenseless and he is experimenting. We've seen him experiment
(wrong word maybe examine) Chloe. Bart was a lawbreaker and terrorist
(maybe with good intentions but was destroying Lex's property without
authorization from any police).
Defenseless: we've been told by Lex and shown that Lex fears the freaks and
Kryptonians. Why not? He's been assualted by them on many
occasions--robbed too. He was possessed by Zod (that should be worse than
rape I would think) and if he loves Lana (I think he does) then he has her
to think about and she's been attacked maybe more than he has. So there is
motivation on his part to investigate these freaks and prevent them from
hurting people. After so many attacks would you want to continue being a
target for them? I don't think so--I wouldn't. In his eyes they aren't
defenseless. Even Gill Boy tried to drown Lana.
There is alos the question whether Lex is really working with gowernment
support. He had to have gotten the patients from Belle Reve with paper
work--they do have parents/families I would think. (Oh we were ust shown a
crooked doctor from Belle Reve that staged the fights but he didn't seem to
have a connection to Lex). Did Lex wonder why his supply of freaks was
drying up? Having them killed by a Zoner would be a waste I would think,
when they could be experimented on in 33.1. Lex would want to shut down the
fight ring as much as Clark.
Lana mentions that Lex is working with the military in the episode where the
power module from the black ship is absorbed by the radiation zoner. He's
also shown to be working with the military on the Leviathan project and on
the drug that made Chloe able to get the truth from people. That accident
allowed her to uncover two murderers, the teacher and Lionel. Yet somehow
Lex is the bad guy here. Very puzzling, that value system. If we want to
consider that the US military and our government are the evil enemy then
Lex's drive to research the freaks and zoners is evil but I then to think
that the US military and government have our best interests at heart and
think they may know more than we do. After all we are also presented the
fact that Lois' dad is a general and has worked in secret with Lex to hide
and protect Chloe. Gen. Lane trusted Lex over everyone else. So is General
Lane evil?
BC
bf
> In article <1175723795.790985.236...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
You are right. I forgot the scene. It's been about 20 years. I stand
corrected. That was excessive, needless violence. And the bad thing
is that Clark came in there deliberately picking a fight so he could
hurt a defenseless human. Looks like the Reeve Superman had some
problems too.
bf
> Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
> to toss Lex into jail.
Although we don't even know for sure it is happening.
We heard Lionel mention the word "experiment" once.. but what is an
experiment.. Is it measuring the strength, etc of the mutants or is it
injecting them with wierd drugs? We need more details.
Since Lionel takes great pleasure when Lex has a setback, I don't
know if he was overdramatizing 33.1 or not. It's hard to say because
they've totally kept us in the dark about it.
We also don't know if 33.1 is legally sanctioned or not. We know Lex
has worked with the army. Sure, legally sanctioned doesn't necessarily
mean morally right, but it would be interesting to know more details.
Right now, I think they are deliberatly making it very vague, because
they are making up the story as they go along.
Anim8rFSK
"bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yep. I always blamed that on Lester, but apparently Donner filmed it.
On the commentary Donner laughs because some people claim he didn't
shoot it, but you can SEE him making a cameo in the parking lot the
first time Clark goes to the diner. Sort of proves he was there. :)
Edward McArdle
"bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 11:42 am, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
> > to toss Lex into jail.
>
> Although we don't even know for sure it is happening.
>
> We heard Lionel mention the word "experiment" once.. but what is an
> experiment.. Is it measuring the strength, etc of the mutants or is it
> injecting them with wierd drugs? We need more details.
>
> Since Lionel takes great pleasure when Lex has a setback, I don't
> know if he was overdramatizing 33.1 or not. It's hard to say because
> they've totally kept us in the dark about it.
>
> We also don't know if 33.1 is legally sanctioned or not. We know Lex
> has worked with the army. Sure, legally sanctioned doesn't necessarily
> mean morally right, but it would be interesting to know more details.
>
Is 33.1 anywhere near Guantanamo Bay?
BC
"Edward McArdle" <mca...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:mcardle-6C548F...@freenews.iinet.net.au...
Funny you should bring that up. I decided to look at the significance.
Baghdad is on the 33rd parallel and just south is the ancient city of
Babylon. President Kennedy was killed on or very near the 33rd parallel.
Jesus was 33 when he was crucified. Solomon's temple stood for 33 years.
There are 33 symbols of the Masonic order and 33 levels. There are 33
heavens in the Tibetan Book of the Dead. The Temple of Solomon was a cube
33.3 feet on a side. David ruled 33 years in Jerusalem. The Civil War
started near the 33rd parallel. FDR died on the 33rd parallel and was
replaced by Harry Truman, a 33rd degree Mason. Weeks later Truman dropped
the A bomb on Nagasaki on the 33rd parallel. Roswell is on the 33rd
parallel. President Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas on the 33rd
parallel.
You get the idea. That there is a magical significance to the number "33"
from ancient times and people link the number to the Masonic order and the
coming of the Antichrist. Did the writers of Smallville use that info to
hide a secret about Lex and 33.1? That Lex is trying to bring forth the
Antichrist? Maybe that is why the baby had glowing eyes?
BC
jeter
"BC" <bcp...@core.com> wrote in message news:_HjRh.12550$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
Hey! I was born 10 mi. from the 33rd, my number on the highschool
basketball team was 33, and I watch Smallville on CW33, ...weird
with a beard, man. ;-)>
BC
"jeter" <ilap...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fgmRh.5971$bM1.2483@trnddc03...
You must be Lex's lost brother? :-)
Scotsman
> On Apr 5, 11:42 am, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
> > to toss Lex into jail.
>
> Although we don't even know for sure it is happening.
>
> We heard Lionel mention the word "experiment" once.. but what is an
> experiment.. Is it measuring the strength, etc of the mutants or is it
> injecting them with wierd drugs? We need more details.
Okay, wasn't Cyborg locked onto a table and being experimented on
while Lex taunted him?
> We also don't know if 33.1 is legally sanctioned or not. We know Lex
> has worked with the army. Sure, legally sanctioned doesn't necessarily
> mean morally right, but it would be interesting to know more details.
This has been rather vague, true.
Scotsman
> On Apr 4, 9:29 pm, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Has Lex ever done anything that extreme? Who was the better husband..
> Lex (to Lana) or Clark (to Alicia)?
Lex's relationships have featured lies, deceit and distrust from
season 1. Lex hiring someone to perform obscene experiments on his own
wife would seem to put him in the worst category. True, she has a nice
room at the mansion though.
>In contrast, Lex protects Lana and actually gives her love and affection.
See above.
>Clark never gave Lana love and affection beyond 2 weeks.. And I'm talking about beyond sex. Clark was
> cold to Lana the entire time they were dating and lied to her about everything. He also took advantage of >Lana's overly forgiven nature and abused her.
It could argued Clark lied for her safety, while Lex lies because,
well, he's a pathological liar. Clark has serious hurdles to overcome
in a relationship. He isn't human. Lex is human, although slowly
becoming the monster he's destined to be.
> I've asked this before. What exactly does Clark and everyone else "know" about Lex. As viewers, we know >Lex's destiny. If you don't know the future, what do these characters really "know" about Lex that is
> so bad.
The show is based on a comic. In this kind of drama, we expect our
heroes to be ahead-of-the-curve in spotting the villans of the piece.
It's a quality that makes these fictional characters heroic. If Clark
were to find out Lex was evil after the waitress at Chili's, it
wouldn't be so compelling.
> > Wow. Sure he fixed it. Why wouldn't he?
>
> I don't think he did. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think he
> broke the railing and then just walked out for a good cry and left it
> broken.
This is trivial, but there's no reason to believe otherwise.
> Wrong, there's a house across the street. There's plenty of neighbors
> nearby. The immigrant walked to the Kent farm pretty quick from
> McNamara's farm. When Clark tossed that picture, it went for miles. It
> could've easily reached "downtown" Smallville.
Again, too bad it didn't smack Lex. ;)
> Your remark about Lex confirms that you like an evil Clark.
C'mon.
> You are using the basis that Superman is always good and Lex is always
> evil. This story is different. Most of the time, Lex is on the good
> side, and Clark is maybe 50/50 at best. Lex is good more often than
> Clark , although neither is perfect. It's not black and white on this
> verson of Superman.
True, the writers have seen to that. But Lex's obsession by secretly
investigatring his "friend" right from Season 1...lying about
repeatedly, laid the foundation for what he is to become. Plus, I have
a feeling that at the end of this series, many of Lex's other
*secrets* will be revealed.
> > And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
> > insinuated about him.
>
> Yes, I ignore all the insinuations about Lex like people just saying
> he's "dark" when for the most part, he's had everyone's good will at
> heart, including Clark, the friend that abandoned him years ago.
But he secretly investigated his "friend," including having an entire
room devoted to him. Who was the first to blink here?
> Maybe I forgot> one, but for the most part, he just sits there and waits for them to
> come to him, just as GA said.
Yes, but this is indeed the build-up to his trip to the Fortress...
> > He slid him down the bar after spinning him at superspeed, and the guy
> > got knocked out when he slammed his head into the jukebox.
> > Point is, even Superman is human on many levels.
>
> You are right.. I hadn't watched Superman 2 in about 20 years, so I
> forgot the exact scene.. Yes, I agree with you, that was excessive. It
> was also vindictive, since Clark deliberately went in their to pick a
> fight and hurt the guy. Not very heroic at all.
It was a bit odd for the character, but it revealed a "human" side.
And purists hated that scene while the average moviegoer applauded
it.
> After he blew up the dog catchers, he sat there smiling while he
> petted Shelby. The dogcatchers were powerless and only commited a
> relatively mild crime (robbing grocery stores).. yet Clark thought
> they deserved to be executed. Ironic, considering that Clark commited
> his own crime spree which was far worse .
You'll have to forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I beleive the
dog-catchers were attempting murder when Clark was freed. The dog they
manipulated killed a shopowner. They were complicit. At least the lead
guy was. If Clark trains Shelby to murder grocery store owners in
future episodes, then the comparison is valid.
jeter
"BC" <bcp...@core.com> wrote in message news:1OrRh.5357$u03....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
I'll fake it. I'm evil that way. :-)
BC
> On Apr 5, 12:23 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 9:29 pm, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Has Lex ever done anything that extreme? Who was the better husband..
>> Lex (to Lana) or Clark (to Alicia)?
>
> Lex's relationships have featured lies, deceit and distrust from
> season 1. Lex hiring someone to perform obscene experiments on his own
> wife would seem to put him in the worst category. True, she has a nice
> room at the mansion though.
We haven't seen any experiments on Lana.
>
>>In contrast, Lex protects Lana and actually gives her love and affection.
>
> See above.
>
>>Clark never gave Lana love and affection beyond 2 weeks.. And I'm talking
>>about beyond sex. Clark was
>> cold to Lana the entire time they were dating and lied to her about
>> everything. He also took advantage of >Lana's overly forgiven nature and
>> abused her.
>
> It could argued Clark lied for her safety, while Lex lies because,
> well, he's a pathological liar. Clark has serious hurdles to overcome
> in a relationship. He isn't human. Lex is human, although slowly
> becoming the monster he's destined to be.
Clark also had lied to his parents about things other than the secret.
>
>
>> I've asked this before. What exactly does Clark and everyone else "know"
>> about Lex. As viewers, we know >Lex's destiny. If you don't know the
>> future, what do these characters really "know" about Lex that is
>> so bad.
>
> The show is based on a comic. In this kind of drama, we expect our
> heroes to be ahead-of-the-curve in spotting the villans of the piece.
> It's a quality that makes these fictional characters heroic. If Clark
> were to find out Lex was evil after the waitress at Chili's, it
> wouldn't be so compelling.
>
>> > Wow. Sure he fixed it. Why wouldn't he?
>>
>> I don't think he did. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I think he
>> broke the railing and then just walked out for a good cry and left it
>> broken.
>
> This is trivial, but there's no reason to believe otherwise.
>
>> Wrong, there's a house across the street. There's plenty of neighbors
>> nearby. The immigrant walked to the Kent farm pretty quick from
>> McNamara's farm. When Clark tossed that picture, it went for miles. It
>> could've easily reached "downtown" Smallville.
>
> Again, too bad it didn't smack Lex. ;)
You can see the house across the street.
>
>> Your remark about Lex confirms that you like an evil Clark.
>
> C'mon.
>
>> You are using the basis that Superman is always good and Lex is always
>> evil. This story is different. Most of the time, Lex is on the good
>> side, and Clark is maybe 50/50 at best. Lex is good more often than
>> Clark , although neither is perfect. It's not black and white on this
>> verson of Superman.
>
> True, the writers have seen to that. But Lex's obsession by secretly
> investigatring his "friend" right from Season 1...lying about
> repeatedly, laid the foundation for what he is to become. Plus, I have
> a feeling that at the end of this series, many of Lex's other
> *secrets* will be revealed.
Like where does the security go in a crisis. And where is the staff.
>
>> > And some people turn a blind eye to Lex's evil deeds and everything
>> > insinuated about him.
>>
>> Yes, I ignore all the insinuations about Lex like people just saying
>> he's "dark" when for the most part, he's had everyone's good will at
>> heart, including Clark, the friend that abandoned him years ago.
>
> But he secretly investigated his "friend," including having an entire
> room devoted to him. Who was the first to blink here?
He explaind to Clark that it was about himself and how he continues to
survive things that should have killed him. So it was a puzzle. Smart
people like puzzles.
>
>> Maybe I forgot> one, but for the most part, he just sits there and waits
>> for them to
>> come to him, just as GA said.
>
> Yes, but this is indeed the build-up to his trip to the Fortress...
>
>
>
>> > He slid him down the bar after spinning him at superspeed, and the guy
>> > got knocked out when he slammed his head into the jukebox.
>> > Point is, even Superman is human on many levels.
>>
>> You are right.. I hadn't watched Superman 2 in about 20 years, so I
>> forgot the exact scene.. Yes, I agree with you, that was excessive. It
>> was also vindictive, since Clark deliberately went in their to pick a
>> fight and hurt the guy. Not very heroic at all.
>
> It was a bit odd for the character, but it revealed a "human" side.
> And purists hated that scene while the average moviegoer applauded
> it.
I was a bit shocked by it. It would have been better to see Clark kick his
butt without powers when Lois was not around.
>
>> After he blew up the dog catchers, he sat there smiling while he
>> petted Shelby. The dogcatchers were powerless and only commited a
>> relatively mild crime (robbing grocery stores).. yet Clark thought
>> they deserved to be executed. Ironic, considering that Clark commited
>> his own crime spree which was far worse .
>
> You'll have to forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I beleive the
> dog-catchers were attempting murder when Clark was freed. The dog they
> manipulated killed a shopowner. They were complicit. At least the lead
> guy was. If Clark trains Shelby to murder grocery store owners in
> future episodes, then the comparison is valid.
They never showed the dog handlers getting killed but the toss was only a
few feet into a wall and the fireball was much larger. Clark keeps saying
he can't kill--maybe he needs to pay attention more. They say ignorance is
bliss.
BC
>
Larry Caldwell
bfor...@yahoo.com (bf) says...
> The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> likable.
You have to do *something* to make him interesting. He's about as
repressed and hung up as it is possible for a young guy to be. I like
red kryptonite Clark better than the vanilla flavor.
They took a comic character from the '50s and plunked him down in a
modern post-pill culture where everybody but Clark is getting laid on a
regular basis. The boy is seriously maladjusted, but that goes with
being an alien from another planet, doesn't it?
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
jeter
"Larry Caldwell" <firstnamel...@peaksky.com> wrote in message news:MPG.2084aed6d...@news.peaksky.com...
The way I recall the Superboy of the early '60's, when I was an occasional
purchaser of the comics, was that he was written as the All-American Boy,
with character and traits that were to be admired and emulated. The frames
of the comics guided the reader easily into the fantasy world of Smallville
that was not so different from everyday life and in that created fantasy, the
reader could identify and relate to their own struggle of morality and virtue
with Superboy's struggle with evil. Seldom was Superboy really challenged
by his foes, once he realized their inherent immorality, his vunerability was
not recognizing the iniquity previously. And so the parables were spun.
I don't feel that current Smallville attempts to attain such an evangelistic
stance, however during Sunday's rerun of Lex's Christmas delirium, I
was expecting Zuzu Petals to ring a bell at any moment. :-)
bf
> On Apr 5, 12:31 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 5, 11:42 am, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
> > > to toss Lex into jail.
>
> > Although we don't even know for sure it is happening.
>
> > We heard Lionel mention the word "experiment" once.. but what is an
> > experiment.. Is it measuring the strength, etc of the mutants or is it
> > injecting them with wierd drugs? We need more details.
>
> Okay, wasn't Cyborg locked onto a table and being experimented on
> while Lex taunted him?
IIRC, they had to insert a chip to control him. Considering that
Cyborg was a walking weapon of mass destruction that was unstable,
it's not totally unreasonable.
Also, if they were simply inserting a chip into him, doesn't that mean
they were altering the machine part of him, as opposed to the human
part of him? Is Cyborg even human anymore? Other than the fact that
he looks like what he did before the wreck, what is the human part of
him? Isn't he a bunch of gears and machine stuff underneath a
simulated human skin? I can't remember exactly, but didn't he pull
back some skin in "Justice"? So at least some of his skin isn't
human.
>
> > We also don't know if 33.1 is legally sanctioned or not. We know Lex
> > has worked with the army. Sure, legally sanctioned doesn't necessarily
> > mean morally right, but it would be interesting to know more details.
>
> This has been rather vague, true.
This whole plotline is vague. If they are going to use 33.1 to
convince us that Lex is evil, they need to at least show Lex in there
doing some evil things.
bf
> On Apr 5, 12:23 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 4, 9:29 pm, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Has Lex ever done anything that extreme? Who was the better husband..
> > Lex (to Lana) or Clark (to Alicia)?
>
> wife would seem to put him in the worst category. True, she has a nice
> room at the mansion though.
Maybe that's in the spoilers, but I haven't seen that in the show yet.
I'm just going by what we've actually seen before. Lex cares about
Lana. Clark didn't care about his wife (or Lana when they were
together).
>
> >Clark never gave Lana love and affection beyond 2 weeks.. And I'm talking about beyond sex. Clark was
> > cold to Lana the entire time they were dating and lied to her about everything. He also took advantage of >Lana's overly forgiven nature and abused her.
>
> It could argued Clark lied for her safety, while Lex lies because,
> well, he's a pathological liar. Clark has serious hurdles to overcome
> in a relationship. He isn't human. Lex is human, although slowly
> becoming the monster he's destined to be.
No, Clark is the one that is the pathological liar. How come Clark
needed to keep secrets for Lana's "safety" but then was willing to
reveal all the secrets to stop Lana's marriage? Sounds like in
reality, Lana's safety had nothing to do with it.
If Clark was truly keeping the secret for Lana's safety, he wouldn't
have tried to spill it to break up the wedding. Clark keeps secrets
because he's selfish.
>
> > I've asked this before. What exactly does Clark and everyone else "know" about Lex. As viewers, we know >Lex's destiny. If you don't know the future, what do these characters really "know" about Lex that is
> > so bad.
>
> The show is based on a comic. In this kind of drama, we expect our
> heroes to be ahead-of-the-curve in spotting the villans of the piece.
> It's a quality that makes these fictional characters heroic. If Clark
> were to find out Lex was evil after the waitress at Chili's, it
> wouldn't be so compelling.
It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
>
> > You are using the basis that Superman is always good and Lex is always
> > evil. This story is different. Most of the time, Lex is on the good
> > side, and Clark is maybe 50/50 at best. Lex is good more often than
> > Clark , although neither is perfect. It's not black and white on this
> > verson of Superman.
>
> True, the writers have seen to that. But Lex's obsession by secretly
> investigatring his "friend" right from Season 1...lying about
> repeatedly, laid the foundation for what he is to become. Plus, I have
> a feeling that at the end of this series, many of Lex's other
> *secrets* will be revealed.
How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
For example, he outed Angel of Vengence. He also blabbed Ollie's
secret to Chloe, when he would've had a fit if Ollie told anyone his
own secret. How many times has Clark invaded Lex's privacy? A lot more
than Lex has invaded Clark's privacy.
Lex has a video which simulates the wreck on the bridge and Clark has
a fit. Meanwhile, Clark thinks it's ok to wander into Lex's Greenhouse
and destroy his orchids on some wild hunch that Lex is behind Plant
Girl. How many times has Clark walked into Lex's house after Lex has
politely told him to stop? How many times has Clark hit on Lana since
Lex and Lana started dating? Would Clark have been as calm as Lex has
been if Lex hit on Lana while Clark & Lana were dating? Of course
not.. We saw that in "Splinter". Clark thought he saw Lex and Lana
kissing, and Clark's impulse was to kill both of them.
Please.. if Lex is evil for "investigating" Clark, then Clark is 10000
times more evil for nosing into other people's business and betraying
Ollie, Angel, and numerous other people.
Sure, it's a given that eventually Lex will be evil. That's the
story. But to this point, Clark has been more evil than Lex.
> But he secretly investigated his "friend," including having an entire
> room devoted to him. Who was the first to blink here?
How is that evil, to have a simulation of a car crash? How is that any
different than the Wall of Wierd?
>
> > After he blew up the dog catchers, he sat there smiling while he
> > petted Shelby. The dogcatchers were powerless and only commited a
> > relatively mild crime (robbing grocery stores).. yet Clark thought
> > they deserved to be executed. Ironic, considering that Clark commited
> > his own crime spree which was far worse .
>
> You'll have to forgive me if I've got this wrong, but I beleive the
> dog-catchers were attempting murder when Clark was freed. The dog they
> manipulated killed a shopowner. They were complicit. At least the lead
> guy was. If Clark trains Shelby to murder grocery store owners in
> future episodes, then the comparison is valid.
I can't remember if the dogs killed anyone or not.. Maybe BC
remembers.
In any event, the dogcatchers were powerless humans. Clark had it in
his power to save them and bring them in for trial, but chose to blow
them up instead, since it was more convienent. This is pretty immoral
for someone that is supposed to be a hero. Lex doesn't have such
disregard for human life.
bf
wrote:
> In article <1175630755.924472.111...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> bford...@yahoo.com (bf) says...
>
> > The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> > likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> > likable.
>
> You have to do *something* to make him interesting. He's about as
> repressed and hung up as it is possible for a young guy to be. I like
> red kryptonite Clark better than the vanilla flavor.
True, they can't have Clark be a totally boring goody-two-shoes.
On the other hand, they don't have to make him pshycotic to make him
interesting.
Case in point. Why didn't they have Lana dump Clark instead of the way
it played out? Have Lana see Clark and Hypno chick naked together and
say "It's over".
That way, Lana doesn't appear to be a doormat (for a change), and then
you actually feel a little bit sorry for Clark since he was set up.
Instead, Clark dumps Lana and then cries when he can't get her back on
a whim?
>
> They took a comic character from the '50s and plunked him down in a
> modern post-pill culture where everybody but Clark is getting laid on a
> regular basis. The boy is seriously maladjusted,
That's the truth. The Kents did a poor job raising Clark.
BC
"bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176328052....@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 2:05 pm, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 5, 12:31 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 11:42 am, "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Certainly experimenting on defenseless human beings is reason enough
>> > > to toss Lex into jail.
>>
>> > Although we don't even know for sure it is happening.
>>
>> > We heard Lionel mention the word "experiment" once.. but what is an
>> > experiment.. Is it measuring the strength, etc of the mutants or is it
>> > injecting them with wierd drugs? We need more details.
>>
>> Okay, wasn't Cyborg locked onto a table and being experimented on
>> while Lex taunted him?
>
> IIRC, they had to insert a chip to control him. Considering that
> Cyborg was a walking weapon of mass destruction that was unstable,
> it's not totally unreasonable.
> Also, if they were simply inserting a chip into him, doesn't that mean
> they were altering the machine part of him, as opposed to the human
> part of him? Is Cyborg even human anymore? Other than the fact that
> he looks like what he did before the wreck, what is the human part of
> him? Isn't he a bunch of gears and machine stuff underneath a
> simulated human skin? I can't remember exactly, but didn't he pull
> back some skin in "Justice"? So at least some of his skin isn't
> human.
synthetic skin, oil for blood etc.
Christopher M.
>
> Clark deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay bails.
> He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
> That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
> power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
Both Clark and Lex did stupid things in the wedding episodes. Clark busted
the railing. He hurled a picture frame out his window at a high rate of
speed. Lex beat his doctor to death. I think they may both live to feel the
reprecussions of these actions.
This might also be a good opportunity for Lois to build some character. For
instance, maybe Lois could fall off the railing or something. Clark could
nurse her back to help with chicken soup and entertain her with a
demonstration of his nunchuck skills (what else does he do with his copious
free time?). They wouldn't fall in love yet, of course. Maybe for an instant
they might gaze into each other's eyes or something. Who knows. This might
be a memory that would bring Clark to the Daily Planet one day, with the
hope to be near Lois again, and to entertain her with his nunchuck skills.
Christopher M.
>
> This might also be a good opportunity for Lois to build some character.
> For instance, maybe Lois could fall off the railing or something. Clark
> could nurse her back to help with chicken soup and entertain her with a
> demonstration of his nunchuck skills (what else does he do with his
> copious free time?). They wouldn't fall in love yet, of course. Maybe for
> an instant they might gaze into each other's eyes or something. Who knows.
> This might be a memory that would bring Clark to the Daily Planet one day,
> with the hope to be near Lois again, and to entertain her with his
> nunchuck skills.
Actually, this could be a fantastic opportunity for Clark to go through a
catharsis. Clark might just grow into a mature and dynamic individual.
BC
> On Apr 10, 12:14 am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <1175630755.924472.111...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> bford...@yahoo.com (bf) says...
>>
>> > The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
>> > likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
>> > likable.
>>
>> You have to do *something* to make him interesting. He's about as
>> repressed and hung up as it is possible for a young guy to be. I like
>> red kryptonite Clark better than the vanilla flavor.
>
> True, they can't have Clark be a totally boring goody-two-shoes.
> On the other hand, they don't have to make him pshycotic to make him
> interesting.
>
> Case in point. Why didn't they have Lana dump Clark instead of the way
> it played out? Have Lana see Clark and Hypno chick naked together and
> say "It's over".
> That way, Lana doesn't appear to be a doormat (for a change), and then
> you actually feel a little bit sorry for Clark since he was set up.
>
> Instead, Clark dumps Lana and then cries when he can't get her back on
> a whim?
Maybe it was written by a woman that would like to see the guy dump the
girl?
>
>
>>
>> They took a comic character from the '50s and plunked him down in a
>> modern post-pill culture where everybody but Clark is getting laid on a
>> regular basis. The boy is seriously maladjusted,
>
> That's the truth. The Kents did a poor job raising Clark.
>
When the series began, it was odd that Clark acted like he didn't know Lana
and she grew up living next door with Nell--3 yrs before 1st grade and then
grades 1-8, so 11 years and he barely knows her. I'd say he was a sheltered
child.
BC
BC
> news:1175630755.9...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Clark deliberately busted up the railing of the barn with those hay
>> bails.
>> He also tossed that picture through the barn wall with great force.
>> That's very irresponsible. That's like me randomly shooting a high
>> power rifle in the air, in a populated area.
>
> Both Clark and Lex did stupid things in the wedding episodes. Clark busted
> the railing. He hurled a picture frame out his window at a high rate of
> speed. Lex beat his doctor to death. I think they may both live to feel
> the reprecussions of these actions.
Not to mention the engagement party where Clark insults his mother, throws
Lex across the room, kidnaps Lana and sexually assualts her. Clark realizes
(thinks) he can't have sex with Lana so he tries to control her. This makes
him a rapist. Rape is more about power and control over another person and
not sex.
So many times on Smallville it looks to me like Clark is being written from
a disgruntled female POV. Clark becomes the enemy, the archetypal Alpha
male and the stories are tailored to present him in an unfavorable light.
The women become the victims--Lana for her devotion--Chloe for her
friendship without a price--Lois for her beauty and pluckiness--Martha for
her wholesomeness etc. While there have been evil women on the show many of
those are either the result of experiments done by males (Emily, Kara) or to
be popular with the males (Bee girl, Fat girl, Zit face girl, Lex's first
wife, Prom girl, Tina Greer wanted to be like Lana to be popular), or were
dominated by males ( Lois and Lucy by the General, Helen Bryce by her
father). Angel of Vengeance sought revenge against males. Exceptions that
I can think of are, Raya, Alicia and Kyla--who were the best girls Clark
hooked up with and what happened to them? They wound up dead--the message
being if you're nice to a man you die.
>
> This might also be a good opportunity for Lois to build some character.
> For instance, maybe Lois could fall off the railing or something. Clark
> could nurse her back to help with chicken soup and entertain her with a
> demonstration of his nunchuck skills (what else does he do with his
> copious free time?). They wouldn't fall in love yet, of course. Maybe for
> an instant they might gaze into each other's eyes or something. Who knows.
> This might be a memory that would bring Clark to the Daily Planet one day,
> with the hope to be near Lois again, and to entertain her with his
> nunchuck skills.
>
This show has about as much to do with canon as Lois and Clark did--so let
Clark and Lois hook up. If he wants to drool over her, I'd just say "join
the crowd."
I'm not saying this will happen--it seems that nearly all the women are
heading toward the land of the Amazons on this show. Lois' super boyfriends
are impotent and dump her, Chloe has a boyfriend but pines for Clark, Lana
is brutalized mentally and physically by both male leads and any freak that
comes along. Clark can't perform even when hypnotized.
BC
BC
As I said in previous post, I don't think this will happen. There appears
to be an overt will or desire to make Clark and the males to look bad and
the women to look like victims.
BC
Christopher M.
>
> While there have been evil women on the show many of those are either the
> result of experiments done by males (Emily, Kara)
> or to be popular with the males (Bee girl, Fat girl, Zit face girl, Lex's
> first wife, Prom girl, Tina Greer wanted to be like Lana to be popular),
Bee girl [Sasha Woodman] wanted to be class president because she was
maniacally obsessed with getting into a good college. Fat Girl [Jodi
Melville] wan't evil in a psychological sense--she had inhuman physical
cravings like a vampire. Lex's first wife just wanted his money. Prom girl
[Dawn Stiles] was a stuck-up snob. Tina Greer was a psychopath.
Hmm. It's funny how the most dramatic villains seem to be psychopaths, like
Tina Greer or Amy Palmer's invisible brother. I guess their ineptness in
fufilling their own ambitions makes them tragic figures.
> or were dominated by males ( Lois and Lucy by the General, Helen Bryce by
> her father).
I don't remember Helen having issues with her relationship with her father
Stanley.
> Angel of Vengeance sought revenge against males. Exceptions that I can
> think of are, Raya, Alicia and Kyla--who were the best girls Clark hooked
> up with and what happened to them? They wound up dead--the message being
> if you're nice to a man you die.
Maybe the writers wanted to kill off these nice girls to emphasize that
Clark would not end up with them in the end. A lot of women whom I have met
often enjoy tragic love stories.
BC
> "BC" <bcp...@core.com> wrote in message
> news:cCrTh.2584$2v1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> While there have been evil women on the show many of those are either the
>> result of experiments done by males (Emily, Kara)
>
>> or to be popular with the males (Bee girl, Fat girl, Zit face girl, Lex's
>> first wife, Prom girl, Tina Greer wanted to be like Lana to be popular),
>
> Bee girl [Sasha Woodman] wanted to be class president because she was
> maniacally obsessed with getting into a good college. Fat Girl [Jodi
> Melville] wan't evil in a psychological sense--she had inhuman physical
> cravings like a vampire. Lex's first wife just wanted his money. Prom girl
> [Dawn Stiles] was a stuck-up snob. Tina Greer was a psychopath.
Bee girl and fat girl wanted to be more popular. Bee girl wanted to be
class pres. I would think that one would have to be popular to be voted
president. Fat girl wanted to date Pete. Lex's first wife used her
pheromones to seduce men, Lex, Jonathan and Clark. It didn't work on Clark.
(Gee I wonder why? Would anything?)
>
> Hmm. It's funny how the most dramatic villains seem to be psychopaths,
> like Tina Greer or Amy Palmer's invisible brother. I guess their ineptness
> in fufilling their own ambitions makes them tragic figures.
>
>> or were dominated by males ( Lois and Lucy by the General, Helen Bryce by
>> her father).
>
> I don't remember Helen having issues with her relationship with her father
> Stanley.
I believe she left wherever they lived to get away from his control--she
told that to Lex in the hospital when he mentioned her father being a
doctor. I would look it up but my DSL is refusing to let me on the web
server.
>
>> Angel of Vengeance sought revenge against males. Exceptions that I can
>> think of are, Raya, Alicia and Kyla--who were the best girls Clark hooked
>> up with and what happened to them? They wound up dead--the message being
>> if you're nice to a man you die.
>
> Maybe the writers wanted to kill off these nice girls to emphasize that
> Clark would not end up with them in the end. A lot of women whom I have
> met often enjoy tragic love stories.
Most romance stories are written by women. The men in those stories are
like women with male equipment. Tragic love stories have been around for a
long time. Is this a love story? My point is that a superhero is being
turned into a wimp. He's like a henpecked husband with powers. Chloe tries
to set him straight--Lana gets him confused--Lois torments him--and all the
while he has to keep the greatest secret in the world and can't be himself.
Martha says that when he's on Red K that it is really him without
inhibitions--Alicia said something similar.
Take the rerun tonight---all three girls interacted with Clark. Lois and
Lana directly with Clark's emotions, Chloe's desires were brought out by
Jimmy. Even Martha had a talk with him later. All the women (not Martha)
want to set him straight and WANT him. But their wanting him makes them
victims.
jeter
for battered chicks.
Impotent Gilligan, Dobie, and Archie didn't bang up
Betty/Veronica, Thalia/Zelda, Ginger/Marianne so wholeheartedly.
Scotsman
> > Lex hiring someone to perform obscene experiments on his own
> > wife would seem to put him in the worst category. True, she has a nice
> > room at the mansion though.
>
> Maybe that's in the spoilers, but I haven't seen that in the show yet.
> I'm just going by what we've actually seen before. Lex cares about
> Lana. Clark didn't care about his wife (or Lana when they were
> together).
It's not a spoiler, the implications are all there for the viewer to
see. We just don't know all the details.
As for Clark never caring about Lana, that's clearly an interpretaiton
and not a fact. We'll have to agree to disagree.
> No, Clark is the one that is the pathological liar. How come Clark
> needed to keep secrets for Lana's "safety" but then was willing to
> reveal all the secrets to stop Lana's marriage?
Clark when he's on the "K," shows his deepest innermost feelings. He
can't suprress them (like humans can). If Lex had ever been on an
equivalent, we have no idea how evil he'd become. He admitted to Lana
in "Crimson" that he would go bezerk if he ever lost her. That's
stable...
Sounds like in> reality, Lana's safety had nothing to do with it.
> If Clark was truly keeping the secret for Lana's safety, he wouldn't
> have tried to spill it to break up the wedding. Clark keeps secrets
> because he's selfish.
Clark kept secrets by the urging of the Kents...again and again, we've
seen how his "secret" endangers those who have it. Is there any doubt
Lex would use the "K" on clark and experiment on him if he knew the
secret? Nope. Clark is learning he is here for a reason. This is a
hero's journey. Sacrifice. He's made the decision to sacrifice his
personal happiness for the greater good in regard to Lana. It's his
love for Lana that keeps him from completely moving on. If you ask me,
I wish he'd moved on two seasons ago when Lois showed up...or even
dated Chloe at this point. But sometimes, people are not in control of
their emotions.
> It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
> the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
> mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
How do you know? Lex's "experiments" and such are so clouded in
secrecy that they could be 100% right. Lex is a professional liar. He
learned it from his Dad. Clark, regardless of your interpretation,
does not do the things he does for "evil" reasons. He makes the
occassional errors in judgement, but he's certainly not "evil."
> How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
the typical teenager.
> How many times has Clark invaded Lex's privacy? A lot more than Lex has >invaded Clark's privacy.
Highly debateable. To say this dismisses all the evidence of Lex's
wrongdoings as circumstanial evidence...this is an OJ defense.
> Lex has a video which simulates the wreck on the bridge and Clark has
> a fit. Meanwhile, Clark thinks it's ok to wander into Lex's Greenhouse
> and destroy his orchids on some wild hunch that Lex is behind Plant
> Girl. How many times has Clark walked into Lex's house after Lex has
> politely told him to stop? How many times has Clark hit on Lana since
> Lex and Lana started dating? Would Clark have been as calm as Lex has
> been if Lex hit on Lana while Clark & Lana were dating? Of course
> not.. We saw that in "Splinter". Clark thought he saw Lex and Lana
> kissing, and Clark's impulse was to kill both of them.
Some wild hunch? Again, when murder is involved, I think Clark has the
right tow rok off of his hunches. He's the hero of the show. It's what
we expect from him. Again, I suppose he could go sit at home, watch
some TV and wait for the 2 person Smallville Police department to
solve these crimes. But how much fun would that be to watch?
In "Splinter" Clark touches a "gift" to Lana, which is an extension of
Brainiac. This "splinter" causes paranoid delusion. He attacks or
explodes in anger at everyone he loves. As for using this as proof
that Clark is "evil"...it fails the test. Unless you'd like to admit
that everything Lex did while being "Zod" was indeed part of his true
nature.
Lex always had a thing for Lana. It was intimated in the early
episodes.
> How is that evil, to have a simulation of a car crash? How is that any
> different than the Wall of Wierd?
Chloe created the Wall of Weird. Clark always worried he'd be a part
of it.
> I can't remember if the dogs killed anyone or not.. Maybe BC
> remembers.
The Rotwieler killled a dog, after the successful robbery...the dog
went back into the shop and killed an innocent, defenseless man on the
orders of those two guys.
> In any event, the dogcatchers were powerless humans. Clark had it in
> his power to save them and bring them in for trial, but chose to blow
> them up instead, since it was more convienent. This is pretty immoral
> for someone that is supposed to be a hero. Lex doesn't have such
> disregard for human life.
Ummm, he didn't blow them up himself. The robbers were responsible for
setting up the death trap and explosives to begin with, attempting
murder, again.
Lex apparently has a disregard for human life, meteor-freak life,
unborn baby life...you name it. He's killed or played a part in
killing so many times it's hard to keep track.
Scotsman
> I'd say he was a sheltered child.
Maybe with good reason: picking up tractors as a toddler can open you
up to a lot of suspicion.
Scotsman
> Not to mention the engagement party where Clark insults his mother, throws
> Lex across the room, kidnaps Lana and sexually assualts her. Clark realizes
> (thinks) he can't have sex with Lana so he tries to control her. This makes
> him a rapist. Rape is more about power and control over another person and
> not sex.
I strongly disagree with the "sexual assault angle," particularly due
to the fact that Lana put her hand on his shoulder as they were
kissing. You'd have a tough time selling the "rapist" angle for
everyone in a movie who kissed a girl when she didn't expect it. Is
Bogey a rapist in "Casabanca?" Is Rhett Butler a rapist? Kissing
someone, who is a willing partner, is not "rape."
Further, Kansas law states that rape is sexual intercourse with a
person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse or in which the
victim does not or could not object to the rape as in the case of (1)
being overcome by fear or force, (2) being unconscious or physically
powerless, (3) being impaired due to mental deficiency or disease, or
(4) being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs administered
by the offender.
Definitions: Rape: Any penetration of the female sex organ by a
finger, by the male sex organ, or by any object without consent
constitutes rape. Remaining silent or not objecting to the rape does
not constitute consent.
I know it's fun to portray Clark as the villain on this board, but
he's certainly no rapist, at least according to the law.
BC
Why hasn't it endangered Martha? Has Lex hunted down Pete? Lex didn't even
go after Pete when he knew that Pete held the secret. Now Lana knows so if
something happens to Lana because of it, it will be because they just want
to continue to victimize Lana. She has to be put in jeopardy so that Clark
can rescue her. It is a repeating plot device.
>
>> It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
>> the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
>> mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
>
> How do you know? Lex's "experiments" and such are so clouded in
> secrecy that they could be 100% right. Lex is a professional liar. He
> learned it from his Dad. Clark, regardless of your interpretation,
> does not do the things he does for "evil" reasons. He makes the
> occassional errors in judgement, but he's certainly not "evil."
Lex could have done more but that would have to be ina story that is in the
heads of the viewers because we haven't been shown it.
>
>> How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
>
> To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
> the typical teenager.
He's not Clark the town sheriff either.
>
>> How many times has Clark invaded Lex's privacy? A lot more than Lex has
>> >invaded Clark's privacy.
>
> Highly debateable. To say this dismisses all the evidence of Lex's
> wrongdoings as circumstanial evidence...this is an OJ defense.
And that worked with the jury.
>
>> Lex has a video which simulates the wreck on the bridge and Clark has
>> a fit. Meanwhile, Clark thinks it's ok to wander into Lex's Greenhouse
>> and destroy his orchids on some wild hunch that Lex is behind Plant
>> Girl. How many times has Clark walked into Lex's house after Lex has
>> politely told him to stop? How many times has Clark hit on Lana since
>> Lex and Lana started dating? Would Clark have been as calm as Lex has
>> been if Lex hit on Lana while Clark & Lana were dating? Of course
>> not.. We saw that in "Splinter". Clark thought he saw Lex and Lana
>> kissing, and Clark's impulse was to kill both of them.
>
> Some wild hunch? Again, when murder is involved, I think Clark has the
> right tow rok off of his hunches. He's the hero of the show. It's what
> we expect from him. Again, I suppose he could go sit at home, watch
> some TV and wait for the 2 person Smallville Police department to
> solve these crimes. But how much fun would that be to watch?
His hunches have often proven wrong. He thought Aquaman was up to no good
then sided with him. He accuses Lex of everything that goes wrong in
Smallville even to the point of Lex saying "now what are you here to accuse
me of" when Clark barges in. (paraphrased).
>
> In "Splinter" Clark touches a "gift" to Lana, which is an extension of
> Brainiac. This "splinter" causes paranoid delusion. He attacks or
> explodes in anger at everyone he loves. As for using this as proof
> that Clark is "evil"...it fails the test. Unless you'd like to admit
> that everything Lex did while being "Zod" was indeed part of his true
> nature.
>
> Lex always had a thing for Lana. It was intimated in the early
> episodes.
Yes for sure--all the way back to Metamorphosis.
>
>> How is that evil, to have a simulation of a car crash? How is that any
>> different than the Wall of Wierd?
>
> Chloe created the Wall of Weird. Clark always worried he'd be a part
> of it.
In the Pilot script--Clark is also collecting articles on the weird things
in Smallville but it is dropped from the final show.
>
>
>> I can't remember if the dogs killed anyone or not.. Maybe BC
>> remembers.
>
> The Rotwieler killled a dog, after the successful robbery...the dog
> went back into the shop and killed an innocent, defenseless man on the
> orders of those two guys.
I assume he was killed but we didn't see it and I don't know if they
referred to a killing at a robbery or if the dog handlers referred to it.
So we may be assuming if it wasn't mentioned. I remember the dog attacking
him behind the counter but that is all.
>
>> In any event, the dogcatchers were powerless humans. Clark had it in
>> his power to save them and bring them in for trial, but chose to blow
>> them up instead, since it was more convienent. This is pretty immoral
>> for someone that is supposed to be a hero. Lex doesn't have such
>> disregard for human life.
>
> Ummm, he didn't blow them up himself. The robbers were responsible for
> setting up the death trap and explosives to begin with, attempting
> murder, again.
Several times Clark could have saved the bad guys so they could face trial
but chose not to. In that case he chose to save the dog only. In Dichotic,
he jumps over the dam to somehow fall faster than Chloe and catch her at the
bottom. Upon his return he needs to save Lana. He catches her hand and
lets the twin fall to his death. Why? Because if he'd used his power Lana
would have seen him. So Clark chooses to let a person die rather than
reveal his secret to someone who will find out eventually anyway. This
action is inconsistent though. Clark, weakened by Green K asks Pete to save
Dr. Hamilton rather than himself but it is too late. A nice gesture written
in to impress Pete who's recently been told of Clark's secret. In the
episode with the tattoo guys, the cars are falling on Whitney and one tattoo
leader. Clark could have easily knocked both of them out of the way but
saved only Whitney. In the junk yard the kid with the loud voice tries to
hurt Clark (sound won't kill him) and a pile of cars falls to crush him.
Clark makes no attempt to save him or does he make an attempt to just knock
him down or thump his head to knock him out.
>
> Lex apparently has a disregard for human life, meteor-freak life,
> unborn baby life...you name it. He's killed or played a part in
> killing so many times it's hard to keep track.
>
Then explain his mourning of his mother and his brother. People say they
can't keep track because the incidents are so numerous but I think it is
because they are only hinted at and not shown--are not factual.
I think it would be a good task to go through and see who's hurt the most
people. My bet is Clark. As far as Lex killing I can only think of a
couple of times--Roger Nixon to save Jonathan and then the Doctor in the
crypt. The pilot of his plane was killed in a fight with Helen over a gun
she had that fired accidentally.
Clark on the other hand has killed Titan, and the Plant girl and the
radiation zoner if he didn't go back to the PZ, Seth was in a unrecoverable
coma according to Lana(dead), his mother's unborn baby, Tina Greer died in a
fight with him much like Titan and if the store owner was killed by a dog
and we didn't see it then I say that in "Run" the guy Clark threw up through
the metal roof and out into an RV was killed even though we didn't see it.
We don't know the outcome of Emily running at superspeed into a wall of
water created by Clark. What prison could hold her?
Personally I don't like any of the male characters on the show with the
exception of Jimmy. Jimmy is a scrawny kid and has no powers but we've seen
him stand up to defend Chloe and Lois. He's also pointed out to Clark his
lawbreaking and he's voiced his reasonable doubts to Chloe's experession of
affection for him.
BC
BC
was raised a sheltered child so the effects are showing.
BC
> On Apr 12, 10:45 am, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention the engagement party where Clark insults his mother,
>> throws
>> Lex across the room, kidnaps Lana and sexually assualts her. Clark
>> realizes
>> (thinks) he can't have sex with Lana so he tries to control her. This
>> makes
>> him a rapist. Rape is more about power and control over another person
>> and
>> not sex.
>
> I strongly disagree with the "sexual assault angle," particularly due
> to the fact that Lana put her hand on his shoulder as they were
> kissing. You'd have a tough time selling the "rapist" angle for
> everyone in a movie who kissed a girl when she didn't expect it. Is
> Bogey a rapist in "Casabanca?" Is Rhett Butler a rapist? Kissing
> someone, who is a willing partner, is not "rape."
That is like saying that a woman that is raped MUST fight back. If she
doesn't then she's consenting? I don't think so. A woman is fearing for
her life. Twice Lana said that Clark is "on something" and for Lex to not
do anything. I believe that Jimmy said that Clark "kidnapped" Lana. He is
the voice of reason on the show.
Rhett Butler was married to Scarlett and that was during the Civil War.
Times have changed. Ilsa came to Rick on her own and wasn't dragged out of
the bar by force. There is no comparison. What was POORLY written in that
episode of Smallville was that NO ONE did anything to stop Clark including
Lex's security. Why? Because Clark on Red K would have revealed his power
so the writer's took the liberty of everyone in the room becoming statues to
make the stupid plot work. And as usual there are NO police anywhere in
Kansas that night. Why wouldn't Lex call the police to teach Clark a
lesson? No doubt that would reflect poorly on Martha, a senator holding a
senate seat that Lex wanted. No doubt that Lionel would get him out of jail
but it would teach him a lesson. The writing is irrational--fickle.
>
> Further, Kansas law states that rape is sexual intercourse with a
> person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse or in which the
> victim does not or could not object to the rape as in the case of (1)
> being overcome by fear or force, (2) being unconscious or physically
> powerless, (3) being impaired due to mental deficiency or disease, or
> (4) being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs administered
> by the offender.
I won't dispute Kansas law but it is irrelevant as it pertains to my word
usage. When looking up the meaning of a word a Kansas law book has no
bearing--it isn't a dictionary.
>
> Definitions: Rape: Any penetration of the female sex organ by a
> finger, by the male sex organ, or by any object without consent
> constitutes rape. Remaining silent or not objecting to the rape does
> not constitute consent.
The Oxford English Dictionary states: RAPE: (Def. 2) The act or action of
carrying away a person (esp.) a woman, by force. Definition 3 pertains to a
sexual act. My use of the word is correct and accurately decribes Clark's
act. I suggest buying a better dictionary.
BC
>
> I know it's fun to portray Clark as the villain on this board, but
> he's certainly no rapist, at least according to the law.
Maybe not a rapist according to Kansas Law but how about kidnapping or did
you coveniently not look that up? I'm not making "fun" of Clark. His
character is emotional and not cool--he's too human and not alien--he's
self-centered--he's fickle--he's like a female with a dick. Lex too isn't a
cool customer. The best villains are mysterious and cool with a poker face.
They get others to do the dirty work. In Lex we see an emotional rich guy
that wants to do all the dirty work himself. He seeks revenge--he leaves
things that Lionel must clean up. Lionel is the cool customer. Lionel is
the prototypical villain. Lex like Clark is a female in disguise.
BC
>
>
>
Scotsman
> "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> Why hasn't it endangered Martha? Has Lex hunted down Pete? Lex didn't even
> go after Pete when he knew that Pete held the secret. Now Lana knows so if
> something happens to Lana because of it, it will be because they just want
> to continue to victimize Lana. She has to be put in jeopardy so that Clark
> can rescue her. It is a repeating plot device.
Lex isn't the only person cpable of harming the Kents.
I agree re: the plot device.
> >> It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
> >> the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
> >> mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
>
> >> How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
>
> > To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
> > the typical teenager.
>
> He's not Clark the town sheriff either.
True, but again, this is future "Superman" here, not future Tax
Accountant.
> His hunches have often proven wrong. He thought Aquaman was up to no good
> then sided with him. He accuses Lex of everything that goes wrong in
> Smallville even to the point of Lex saying "now what are you here to accuse
> me of" when Clark barges in. (paraphrased).
I would never claim he's right 100% of the time.
> >> How is that evil, to have a simulation of a car crash? How is that any
> >> different than the Wall of Wierd?
>
> > Chloe created the Wall of Weird. Clark always worried he'd be a part
> > of it.
>
> In the Pilot script--Clark is also collecting articles on the weird things
> in Smallville but it is dropped from the final show.
Which was a wise move.
> >> I can't remember if the dogs killed anyone or not.. Maybe BC
> >> remembers.
> Several times Clark could have saved the bad guys so they could face trial
> but chose not to. In that case he chose to save the dog only. In Dichotic,
> he jumps over the dam to somehow fall faster than Chloe and catch her at the
> bottom. Upon his return he needs to save Lana. He catches her hand and
> lets the twin fall to his death. Why? Because if he'd used his power Lana
> would have seen him. So Clark chooses to let a person die rather than
> reveal his secret to someone who will find out eventually anyway. This
> action is inconsistent though. Clark, weakened by Green K asks Pete to save
> Dr. Hamilton rather than himself but it is too late. A nice gesture written
> in to impress Pete who's recently been told of Clark's secret. In the
> episode with the tattoo guys, the cars are falling on Whitney and one tattoo
> leader. Clark could have easily knocked both of them out of the way but
> saved only Whitney. In the junk yard the kid with the loud voice tries to
> hurt Clark (sound won't kill him) and a pile of cars falls to crush him.
> Clark makes no attempt to save him or does he make an attempt to just knock
> him down or thump his head to knock him out.
Yes, Clark has made decisions that are inconsistent with whom he will
become...the same with Lex. He's done a lot of (apparently) selfless
things, but we know how he ends up.
> Then explain his mourning of his mother and his brother. People say they
> can't keep track because the incidents are so numerous but I think it is
> because they are only hinted at and not shown--are not factual.
Don't get me wrong, I fully realize Lex is a three-dimensional
character. He wasn't born pure evil...we're witnessing his ascension.
I don't recall the ep when he mourned his brother, but it was one of
my favorites and made the future acension to evil that much more
tragic.
> I think it would be a good task to go through and see who's hurt the most
> people. My bet is Clark. As far as Lex killing I can only think of a
> couple of times--Roger Nixon to save Jonathan and then the Doctor in the
> crypt. The pilot of his plane was killed in a fight with Helen over a gun
> she had that fired accidentally.
Not sure...I think many of these moments could be, and certainly would
be, interpreted differently.
> Personally I don't like any of the male characters on the show with the
> exception of Jimmy. Jimmy is a scrawny kid and has no powers but we've seen
> him stand up to defend Chloe and Lois. He's also pointed out to Clark his
> lawbreaking and he's voiced his reasonable doubts to Chloe's experession of
> affection for him.
I like the Jimmy character as well.
Scotsman
>
> > I strongly disagree with the "sexual assault angle," particularly due
> > to the fact that Lana put her hand on his shoulder as they were
> > kissing. You'd have a tough time selling the "rapist" angle for
> > everyone in a movie who kissed a girl when she didn't expect it. Is
> > Bogey a rapist in "Casabanca?" Is Rhett Butler a rapist? Kissing
> > someone, who is a willing partner, is not "rape."
>
> That is like saying that a woman that is raped MUST fight back. If she
> doesn't then she's consenting? I don't think so. A woman is fearing for
> her life. Twice Lana said that Clark is "on something" and for Lex to not
> do anything. I believe that Jimmy said that Clark "kidnapped" Lana. He is
> the voice of reason on the show.
I'm not sure where you're going here. Are you suggesting a woman
sharing a consensual kiss can claim it as "rape" after the fact?
Clark was "on something" as Jimmy said...I actually don't understand
how so many people just brush off his behavior. It's weak writing.
> Rhett Butler was married to Scarlett and that was during the Civil War.
> Times have changed.
Hmmm, not sure I can agree with you there.
>Ilsa came to Rick on her own and wasn't dragged out of
> the bar by force. There is no comparison. What was POORLY written in that
> episode of Smallville was that NO ONE did anything to stop Clark including
> Lex's security. Why? Because Clark on Red K would have revealed his power
> so the writer's took the liberty of everyone in the room becoming statues to
> make the stupid plot work.
I'd agree here.
>nd as usual thre are NO police anywhere in Kansas that night. Why wouldn't Lex >all the police to teach Clark a lesson? No doubt that would reflect poorly on >artha, a senator holding a senate seat that Lex wanted. No doubt that Lionel >ould get him out of jail but it would teach him a lesson. The writing is irrational-->ickle.
Agreed.
> > Further, Kansas law states that rape is sexual intercourse with a
> > person who does not consent to the sexual intercourse or in which the
> > victim does not or could not object to the rape as in the case of (1)
> > being overcome by fear or force, (2) being unconscious or physically
> > powerless, (3) being impaired due to mental deficiency or disease, or
> > (4) being under the influence of alcohol or other drugs administered
> > by the offender.
>
> I won't dispute Kansas law but it is irrelevant as it pertains to my word
> usage. When looking up the meaning of a word a Kansas law book has no
> bearing--it isn't a dictionary.
I see your point, and agree rape is about "power." I even understand
your point about Clark not being able to, ahem, "get with" a girl in
the traditional sense, but I think it's too far a leap to call him a
rapist. This is why I chose to point out that legally, there would be
no leg to stand on in a Kansas courtroom. Further, this is not the
kind of plotline I want to see in "Smallville." ;)
> > Definitions: Rape: Any penetration of the female sex organ by a
> > finger, by the male sex organ, or by any object without consent
> > constitutes rape. Remaining silent or not objecting to the rape does
> > not constitute consent.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary states: RAPE: (Def. 2) The act or action of
> carrying away a person (esp.) a woman, by force. Definition 3 pertains to a
> sexual act. My use of the word is correct and accurately decribes Clark's
> act. I suggest buying a better dictionary.
Merriam-Webster is fine by me. rape: unlawful sexual activity and
usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of
injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is
beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent.
> Maybe not a rapist according to Kansas Law but how about kidnapping or did
> you coveniently not look that up?
Kidnapped I never argued.
>I'm not making "fun" of Clark. His character is emotional and not cool--he's too human and not alien--he's self-centered--he's fickle--he's like a female with a dick. Lex too isn't a cool customer. The best villains are mysterious and cool with a poker face. They get others to do the dirty work. In Lex we see an emotional rich guy that wants to do all the dirty work himself. He seeks revenge--he leaves
> things that Lionel must clean up. Lionel is the cool customer. Lionel is
> the prototypical villain. Lex like Clark is a female in disguise.
I agree Lionel is the prototypical villain...this is the writers way
of having their cake and eating it too.
BC
> On Apr 13, 11:46 am, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>> "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>> Why hasn't it endangered Martha? Has Lex hunted down Pete? Lex didn't
>> even
>> go after Pete when he knew that Pete held the secret. Now Lana knows so
>> if
>> something happens to Lana because of it, it will be because they just
>> want
>> to continue to victimize Lana. She has to be put in jeopardy so that
>> Clark
>> can rescue her. It is a repeating plot device.
>
> Lex isn't the only person cpable of harming the Kents.
The zoners know who he is though and don't need to threaten anyone. They
come right after Clark.
>
> I agree re: the plot device.
The show worked very well in the beginning using that plot device but I
think everyone is tired of it. Lana the victim; Lois the victim; Chloe the
victim etc. Is Clark saving people's lives or is he just saving the SAME
people's lives over and over?
>
>> >> It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
>> >> the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
>> >> mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
>>
>> >> How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
>>
>> > To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
>> > the typical teenager.
>>
>> He's not Clark the town sheriff either.
>
> True, but again, this is future "Superman" here, not future Tax
> Accountant.
Well if he was to inspect Lex's books looking for wrong doing then he should
have that ability. He certainly doesn't have the authority to do most of
what he does. I can see a superhero acting in a sense of emergency to stop
a person that is going to commit a crime but Clark has a record of breaking
into places and snooping around with and without Chloe. Sometimes it pays
off. Stealing an FBI agent's badge on the waterfront wasn't too smooth a
move. The show focuses on freaks and zoners etc. and forgets that
superpower can be used to save people. Clark running on a giant treadmill
that was hooked to a dynamo would generate electricity and prevent the
making of a lot of greenhouse gases. :-) (just kidding)
>
>> His hunches have often proven wrong. He thought Aquaman was up to no
>> good
>> then sided with him. He accuses Lex of everything that goes wrong in
>> Smallville even to the point of Lex saying "now what are you here to
>> accuse
>> me of" when Clark barges in. (paraphrased).
>
> I would never claim he's right 100% of the time.
I think the accusations by Clark of Lex are something the writers put in
just to get Clark to the mansion. His actions a lot of the time don't look
well thought out.
I don't any longer see a direct connection of Smallville with the mythos.
Lex and Lois are out of place and Chloe is a big player. In the movie
Jonathan's death signals Clark's leaving for the making of the Fortress and
his training but the Fortress is made and it is not a factor in the show now
and Clark still drifts around on the farm. Clark and Lex aren't developing
along any logical path. Both are too emotional to get anywhere. Clark is
too dependent on Chloe or Martha to get him out of a bad strait. Lex was
more effective early in the series when he had the employees buy out Lionel
for company control of the Smallville plant. Lexcorp has to do something to
make money and ALL the plants around the world can't be 33.1 projects. Not
much of this story makes sense anymore.
>
>
>> Then explain his mourning of his mother and his brother. People say they
>> can't keep track because the incidents are so numerous but I think it is
>> because they are only hinted at and not shown--are not factual.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I fully realize Lex is a three-dimensional
> character. He wasn't born pure evil...we're witnessing his ascension.
> I don't recall the ep when he mourned his brother, but it was one of
> my favorites and made the future acension to evil that much more
> tragic.
Shattered for one, when he used a blanket roll to represent Julian. Memoria
was the other (one of my all time faves of the program). Lionel accused Lex
of killing him when it was Lex'smother that did. Lex suppressed it all the
years until it was brought out at Summerholt.
>
>> I think it would be a good task to go through and see who's hurt the most
>> people. My bet is Clark. As far as Lex killing I can only think of a
>> couple of times--Roger Nixon to save Jonathan and then the Doctor in the
>> crypt. The pilot of his plane was killed in a fight with Helen over a
>> gun
>> she had that fired accidentally.
>
> Not sure...I think many of these moments could be, and certainly would
> be, interpreted differently.
I admit that the culpability of Lex is kept in the dark on purpose. We are
supposed to know from canon that he "did" it, but I'm old fashioned I
guess--I want them to SHOW me since this is a visual medium. We shouldn't
have to read another source to get info on a show's intent IF it was written
well. "A picture is worth a thousand words" it is said. But with
Smallville a picture needs a thousand words of explanation.
>
>> Personally I don't like any of the male characters on the show with the
>> exception of Jimmy. Jimmy is a scrawny kid and has no powers but we've
>> seen
>> him stand up to defend Chloe and Lois. He's also pointed out to Clark
>> his
>> lawbreaking and he's voiced his reasonable doubts to Chloe's experession
>> of
>> affection for him.
>
> I like the Jimmy character as well.
At first I thought it would be a dorky role and they would make him look
stupid or clutzy. But they've done a rather nice job with Jimmy and he's
better for Chloe than Clark would ever be.
>
BC
> On Apr 13, 12:15 pm, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I strongly disagree with the "sexual assault angle," particularly due
>> > to the fact that Lana put her hand on his shoulder as they were
>> > kissing. You'd have a tough time selling the "rapist" angle for
>> > everyone in a movie who kissed a girl when she didn't expect it. Is
>> > Bogey a rapist in "Casabanca?" Is Rhett Butler a rapist? Kissing
>> > someone, who is a willing partner, is not "rape."
>>
>> That is like saying that a woman that is raped MUST fight back. If she
>> doesn't then she's consenting? I don't think so. A woman is fearing for
>> her life. Twice Lana said that Clark is "on something" and for Lex to
>> not
>> do anything. I believe that Jimmy said that Clark "kidnapped" Lana. He
>> is
>> the voice of reason on the show.
>
> I'm not sure where you're going here. Are you suggesting a woman
> sharing a consensual kiss can claim it as "rape" after the fact?
First I'd repeat that what we saw was not "rape" in the legal sense but was
rape in the "literal" sense. It wasn't the kiss but it was grabbing her arm
and pulling her out of the mansion and into a car(?). See this is another
stupid point. Clark on Red K shows Lois his powers. But do you think that
Clark on Red K will HIDE them from Lana? Hell no. He would pick her up and
superspeed to the barn loft. As it was we would have to assume that he
drove her to the farm in some car--maybe Martha's or Lois' or however he got
there. My belief is that an obsessed Clark would just pick her up and run
to show off.
Christopher M.
>
>...it'd save the world a helluva lot of heartache if Lex bought it right
>now.
In the series 'Justice League Unlimited' the death of Lex in an alternate
universe led to a world war.
Scotsman
wrote:
> "Scotsman" <ptwindm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1175736572....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >...it'd save the world a helluva lot of heartache if Lex bought it right
> >now.
>
> In the series 'Justice League Unlimited' the death of Lex in an alternate
> universe led to a world war.
And in the Superman films Lex consistently threatens the lives of
millions...only Superman prevents it from happening.
Scotsman
> Clark running on a giant treadmill
> that was hooked to a dynamo would generate electricity and prevent the
> making of a lot of greenhouse gases. :-) (just kidding)
Now *there's* an idea!
> I think the accusations by Clark of Lex are something the writers put in
> just to get Clark to the mansion. His actions a lot of the time don't look
> well thought out.
Oh yeah, certainly..."guys we have 42 minutes...we need to get Clark
over the mansion."
> I don't any longer see a direct connection of Smallville with the mythos.
> Lex and Lois are out of place and Chloe is a big player. In the movie
> Jonathan's death signals Clark's leaving for the making of the Fortress and
> his training but the Fortress is made and it is not a factor in the show now
> and Clark still drifts around on the farm.
I'd bet the ceators would have ended "Smallville" with Jonathan's
death if the show wasn't such a demo hit for the network, thus leading
to more seasons.
≥Clark and Lex aren't developing > along any logical path. Both are
too emotional to get anywhere. Clark is
> too dependent on Chloe or Martha to get him out of a bad strait. Lex was
> more effective early in the series when he had the employees buy out Lionel
> for company control of the Smallville plant. Lexcorp has to do something to
> make money and ALL the plants around the world can't be 33.1 projects. Not
> much of this story makes sense anymore.
Clark is stunted in his growth...treading water. The writers are doing
a little more with Lex, but are still holding the cards close to their
chests.
> I admit that the culpability of Lex is kept in the dark on purpose. We are
> supposed to know from canon that he "did" it, but I'm old fashioned I
> guess--I want them to SHOW me since this is a visual medium. We shouldn't
> have to read another source to get info on a show's intent IF it was written
> well. "A picture is worth a thousand words" it is said. But with
> Smallville a picture needs a thousand words of explanation.
This is why I'm convinced M & G had a plan, and the network(s) asked
them to "stretch it out a little longer."
> At first I thought it would be a dorky role and they would make him look
> stupid or clutzy. But they've done a rather nice job with Jimmy and he's
> better for Chloe than Clark would ever be.
This was one move by the PTB that worked, and gives fans of Chloe a
bone as well...she deserves Jimmy.
BC
On Apr 13, 6:27 pm, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
> Clark running on a giant treadmill
> that was hooked to a dynamo would generate electricity and prevent the
> making of a lot of greenhouse gases. :-) (just kidding)
Now *there's* an idea!
> I think the accusations by Clark of Lex are something the writers put in
> just to get Clark to the mansion. His actions a lot of the time don't
> look
> well thought out.
Oh yeah, certainly..."guys we have 42 minutes...we need to get Clark
over the mansion."
> I don't any longer see a direct connection of Smallville with the mythos.
> Lex and Lois are out of place and Chloe is a big player. In the movie
> Jonathan's death signals Clark's leaving for the making of the Fortress
> and
> his training but the Fortress is made and it is not a factor in the show
> now
> and Clark still drifts around on the farm.
I'd bet the ceators would have ended "Smallville" with Jonathan's
death if the show wasn't such a demo hit for the network, thus leading
to more seasons.
From my POV it did end there. It took off on a new direction(s).
?Clark and Lex aren't developing > along any logical path. Both are
too emotional to get anywhere. Clark is
> too dependent on Chloe or Martha to get him out of a bad strait. Lex was
> more effective early in the series when he had the employees buy out
> Lionel
> for company control of the Smallville plant. Lexcorp has to do something
> to
> make money and ALL the plants around the world can't be 33.1 projects.
> Not
> much of this story makes sense anymore.
Clark is stunted in his growth...treading water. The writers are doing
a little more with Lex, but are still holding the cards close to their
chests.
> I admit that the culpability of Lex is kept in the dark on purpose. We
> are
> supposed to know from canon that he "did" it, but I'm old fashioned I
> guess--I want them to SHOW me since this is a visual medium. We shouldn't
> have to read another source to get info on a show's intent IF it was
> written
> well. "A picture is worth a thousand words" it is said. But with
> Smallville a picture needs a thousand words of explanation.
This is why I'm convinced M & G had a plan, and the network(s) asked
them to "stretch it out a little longer."
The Pilot that M&G wrote is a good piece.
> At first I thought it would be a dorky role and they would make him look
> stupid or clutzy. But they've done a rather nice job with Jimmy and he's
> better for Chloe than Clark would ever be.
This was one move by the PTB that worked, and gives fans of Chloe a
bone as well...she deserves Jimmy.
So if it is Chloe that goes then what becomes of Jimmy? Clark's new Pete?
BC
bf
> and she grew up living next door with Nell--3 yrs before 1st grade and then
> grades 1-8, so 11 years and he barely knows her. I'd say he was a sheltered
> child.
> BC
It's another inconsistency. You are right. At the beginning of the
series, Lana was a stranger that Clark was infatuated with, and very
distant.
In later episodes, they imply that Clark and Lana knew each other
their entire childhood, played in the sandbox together, knew that
they'd be married someday, etc.. Yes, I'm exaggerating a little bit,
but they imply they knew each other very well as children.
Also, they imply that Clark spied on Lana with the telescope
frequently as they were growing up.
bf
> I'm not saying this will happen--it seems that nearly all the women are
> heading toward the land of the Amazons on this show. Lois' super boyfriends
> are impotent and dump her, Chloe has a boyfriend but pines for Clark, Lana
> is brutalized mentally and physically by both male leads and any freak that
> comes along. Clark can't perform even when hypnotized.
> BC
>
Not to mention that Jimmy is a totally emasculated male that worships
Chloe and follows her around like a puppy dog, while she seldom
returns his effection. He temporarily was a man in one episode when
he broke up with Chloe, but in a very Lana-like way, Jimmy gave Chloe
unconditional forgiveness the next week.
Actually I think Jimmy and Lana share a lot of common traits. Jimmy is
to Chloe as Lana is to Clark..
While I see a lot of your points about how women are portrayed, I
think Lana is portrayed as a weak and stupid woman who makes many poor
choices. Also, she has no identity of her own outside the male she is
currently dating. This is ironic, as she's supposedly the main female
lead, and she's the weakest (and the most pathetic) woman on the cast.
Early in the season, you could feel some sympathy for Lana, but she's
made so many dumb choices that it's hard to feel sorry for her. Her
best choice was to hook up with Lex, and she keeps trying to sabotage
that.
bf
wrote:
> Maybe the writers wanted to kill off these nice girls to emphasize that
> Clark would not end up with them in the end. A lot of women whom I have met
> often enjoy tragic love stories.
>
I think it's laziness more than anything. Take Raya for instance. They
wanted her on earth because it's a nice easy story about her telling
him to embrace his destiny, etc. Clark can temporarily have someone
who "understands" him. Now all they need is a lame villian, who can
kill Raya, so they don't have to worry about paying her for another
episode, and so they don't have a complex relationship story.. back to
pining for Lana next week.
Likewise, Alicia was doomed because she just made too much sense. With
her in the picture, why would Clark have any interest in Lana (with
all her baggage). Heck, Alicia was probably already more popular than
Lana.
While I'm glad they brought Alicia back, having Clark marry her and
then totally abandon her really made Clark's character look bad. It
also made his sadness seem insincere at the end, since he didn't
really care about her while she was alive.
bf
> On Apr 11, 5:59 pm, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Lex hiring someone to perform obscene experiments on his own
> > > wife would seem to put him in the worst category. True, she has a nice
> > > room at the mansion though.
>
> > Maybe that's in the spoilers, but I haven't seen that in the show yet.
> > I'm just going by what we've actually seen before. Lex cares about
> > Lana. Clark didn't care about his wife (or Lana when they were
> > together).
>
> It's not a spoiler, the implications are all there for the viewer to
> see. We just don't know all the details.
I'm not so sure. We have seen Lex prepare the nursery. We have seen
Lex get all excited about the pregnancy. Maybe that was all an act,
but it seems doubtful.
I guess I have not seen any implications that Lex is doing something
funny with the fetus. All we know is there's some kind of secret that
Lex wanted the doctor to withhold.. Maybe the doctor saw a genetic
defect on the ultrasound and Lex knew that a miscarriage was going to
happen. Lex wanted to keep it secret from Lana so that the marriage
wouldn't be risked. Lex set up the nursery, etc because he was in
denial of it happening.
It just seems totally illogical that Lex would experiment on his own
kid, as I've said in other posts. But yes, this is just TV, so maybe
it's not going to be logical.
>
> Clark when he's on the "K," shows his deepest innermost feelings. He
> can't suprress them (like humans can). If Lex had ever been on an
> equivalent, we have no idea how evil he'd become. He admitted to Lana
> in "Crimson" that he would go bezerk if he ever lost her. That's
> stable...
Clark has actually gone berzerk, many times. Sometimes when he's not
under Red K (Splinter). Clark has tried to kill people. Clark has
injured people by tossing them hard. Remember how hard Clark threw
Lionel when Fine was disguised as John's ghost? Or how about how hard
Clark tossed Lex in Crimson? Clark is a violet physcopath. Violence is
Clark's first choice of settling conflict. On the other hand, violence
is Lex's last choice. Lex even let Clark come into his own home and
punch him, and turned the other cheek. That's amazing self control.
Lex tolerates Clark constantly flirting with his finance/wife. Again,
most men would blow a gasket. Lex has superhuman self control. Clark
could learn a lot from Lex.
> Clark kept secrets by the urging of the Kents...again and again, we've
> seen how his "secret" endangers those who have it. Is there any doubt
> Lex would use the "K" on clark and experiment on him if he knew the
> secret? Nope. Clark is learning he is here for a reason. This is a
> hero's journey. Sacrifice. He's made the decision to sacrifice his
> personal happiness for the greater good in regard to Lana. It's his
> love for Lana that keeps him from completely moving on. If you ask me,
> I wish he'd moved on two seasons ago when Lois showed up...or even
> dated Chloe at this point. But sometimes, people are not in control of
> their emotions.
Yet Clark is willing to blab his secret to a migrant farm worker that
he's only known for a couple of hours? Clark is willing to blab
Ollie's secret to Chloe and expose other people as well. The entire
storyline of "Lana must not know Clark's secret" was incredibly
contrived. The fact that Clark was willing to tell Lana the secret as
a desparate ploy to stop the wedding was proof that Clark keeps his
secret for purely selfish reasons only.
Really, it's laughable to think that if Lex knew Clark's secret that
he'd show up at the Kent farm with a truckload of Kryptonite and
experiment on Clark forever.
>
> > It's not heroic to constantly accuse people with no evidence. Most of
> > the time, Clark's accusations about Lex are 100% wrong. Not to
> > mention, that Clark has done more evil things than Lex.
>
> How do you know? Lex's "experiments" and such are so clouded in
> secrecy that they could be 100% right. Lex is a professional liar.
Do I need to go through the countless times that Clark has assumed
that Lex was behind the crisis of the week, only to be proved wrong?
Plant Girl was a recent example. What about the time Clark almost
killed the Sandman, purely based on Lois' hunch? What about the time
Clark turned in his wife Alicia in for murder with no real evidence?
Clark jumps to conclusions with no evidence all the time. He often
uses violence against people without real information. That's what
makes Clark so dangerous.
> He
> learned it from his Dad. Clark, regardless of your interpretation,
> does not do the things he does for "evil" reasons. He makes the
> occassional errors in judgement, but he's certainly not "evil."
When Clark attempted to kill his parents, Lana, and Lex in
"splinter"..
Wasn't that evil?
What about the crime spree in Metropolis? Wasn't that evil?
Crimson.. wasn't that evil?
Blowing up the dogcatchers..evil
Destroying property, using excessive violent force when it's not
necessary, killing people when it's not necessary .. evil.
The titan episode was pretty interesting. Titan comes down and wants
to kill superpowered people for the "rush" or whatever. The funny
thing is that Clark is almost exactly like Titan. He seeks out
superpowered "Freaks" to kill. Just like Titan. And they made a point
of showing the newspaper clippings in the beginning of the episode
showing Clark's vigillate justice to underscore that there's not much
difference in Titan and Clark. The idea even came to dummy Clark.
>
> > How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
>
> To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
> the typical teenager.
Why did he have to know Angel's secret? I think it was because Clark
rationalized that there was a lost watch at stake. LOL.. Which is
absurd, because Clark could superspeed and Xray vision the town and
find the damn watch in about 2 seconds. Not to mention, he didn't care
about the watch hours earlier.
Why did Clark have to pry into Aqua's life just because Aqua saved
Lois from drowning? What if Clark saved someone's life and a witness
thought that Clark might be up to "no good" and started prying.. Wait
a minute.. Lex did that, and Clark threw a hissy fit. How come Lex
investigating Clark is bad, but Clark investigating Aqua and Angel is
ok?
>
> > How many times has Clark invaded Lex's privacy? A lot more than Lex has >invaded Clark's privacy.
>
> Highly debateable. To say this dismisses all the evidence of Lex's
> wrongdoings as circumstanial evidence...this is an OJ defense.
I agree that Lex is not 100% good. I'm just saying that Clark is more
evil and more dangerous than Lex.
>
> > Lex has a video which simulates the wreck on the bridge and Clark has
> > a fit. Meanwhile, Clark thinks it's ok to wander into Lex's Greenhouse
> > and destroy his orchids on some wild hunch that Lex is behind Plant
> > Girl. How many times has Clark walked into Lex's house after Lex has
> > politely told him to stop? How many times has Clark hit on Lana since
> > Lex and Lana started dating? Would Clark have been as calm as Lex has
> > been if Lex hit on Lana while Clark & Lana were dating? Of course
> > not.. We saw that in "Splinter". Clark thought he saw Lex and Lana
> > kissing, and Clark's impulse was to kill both of them.
>
> Some wild hunch? Again, when murder is involved, I think Clark has the
> right tow rok off of his hunches. He's the hero of the show. It's what
> we expect from him. Again, I suppose he could go sit at home, watch
> some TV and wait for the 2 person Smallville Police department to
> solve these crimes. But how much fun would that be to watch?
Wow. So if a murder happens, Clark has free reign to injure/kill
whoever he wants to, if he has a "hunch".
How about having Clark and Chloe do some detective work and actually
get some stronger evidence on someone before Clark beats the crap out
of them? Evidence beyond.. "Well, the internet says this person was
driving through Smallville during the second meteor storm, so maybe he
has powers".. And Clark has beaten people on less "evidence" than
that.
The sandman is a perfect example. Most of the town agreed with the
sandman that it was immoral for Lana to have sex with a teacher. Most
of the town also agreed that Alicia was dangerous and would've
prefered she never left Bellreeve. Just because the sandman's moral
views are different than Clark's doesn't mean that Clark can assume
he's guilty and fry him with heat vision. What if Clark was wrong?
What if it was an innocent person?
Plenty of other shows aren't so sloppy with the hero killing/injuring
people with no evidence.
>
> In "Splinter" Clark touches a "gift" to Lana, which is an extension of
> Brainiac. This "splinter" causes paranoid delusion. He attacks or
> explodes in anger at everyone he loves. As for using this as proof
> that Clark is "evil"...it fails the test. Unless you'd like to admit
> that everything Lex did while being "Zod" was indeed part of his true
> nature.
The splinter gave Clark hallucinations. Clark acted normally.
Case in point.. In the begining, a truck runs Clark off the road. He
remains calm. He doesn't run after the truck and try to kill anyone.
He gets the plate and tries to track it down. He keeps his cool.
But when he hallucinates that his parents are telling Lionel the
secret, he tries to kill them. When he hallucinates Lex and Lana
kissing, he tries to kill them.
See the difference? When Clark sees something that invokes an
emotional response, he reacts with violence. Clark getting ran off the
road did not invoke violent. Jealousy of Lana and the secret did
invoke violence.
The silver K didn't make Clark violent. If it did, Clark would
supersped after the truck that ran him off the road and killed the
driver.
.
>
> > How is that evil, to have a simulation of a car crash? How is that any
> > different than the Wall of Wierd?
>
> Chloe created the Wall of Weird. Clark always worried he'd be a part
> of it.
Thus, Lex's hologram of the wreck is not evil. That's my point. It's
no different than the wall of wierd.
> Ummm, he didn't blow them up himself. The robbers were responsible for
> setting up the death trap and explosives to begin with, attempting
> murder, again.
Didn't Clark start the fire though? In any event, Clark made no
attempt to save the dogcatchers. He let them die and then smiled about
it.
>
> Lex apparently has a disregard for human life, meteor-freak life,
> unborn baby life...you name it. He's killed or played a part in
> killing so many times it's hard to keep track.
Clark is responsible for far more many deaths.
If we are going to talk about Lex's experiments, what about Clark's
experiments?
Clark experimented by putting the bad key in the ship.. Killed
someone.
Clark experimented by ignoring Jorel's advice about collecting the
stones. It eventually caused the second metor shower and killed many
people.
Clark experimenting by stabbing Fine with the knife instead of Lex.
Released Zod and killed people.
Clark experimented by leaving the phantom zone and releasing all the
Zoners on earth. More deaths Clark is responsible for.
Clark pressured Healing Boy to heal the bullies, when Clark could've
supersped them to the hospital. Healing boy died.
Clark is responsible for many more innocent deaths than Lex is.
bf
> On Apr 12, 10:45 am, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>
> > Not to mention the engagement party where Clark insults his mother, throws
> > Lex across the room, kidnaps Lana and sexually assualts her. Clark realizes
> > (thinks) he can't have sex with Lana so he tries to control her. This makes
> > him a rapist. Rape is more about power and control over another person and
> > not sex.
>
> I strongly disagree with the "sexual assault angle," particularly due
> to the fact that Lana put her hand on his shoulder as they were
> kissing. You'd have a tough time selling the "rapist" angle for
> everyone in a movie who kissed a girl when she didn't expect it. Is
> Bogey a rapist in "Casabanca?" Is Rhett Butler a rapist? Kissing
> someone, who is a willing partner, is not "rape."
Lana knew Clark was irrational. She just saw him toss Lex through a
pile of glass. She's his prisioner. Perhaps she was doing what she had
to do to survive. When Lex arrives, Clark tries to kill him.. So it
seems like Lana was being smart here (for a change). If Lex and Martha
hadn't arrived, Lana's choice would've likely been to lie down and
submit to Clark's sexual advances or die.
Clark dragged Lana to the barn against her will and made unwelcome
sexual advances. Lex and Lana should've pressed charges.
>
> I know it's fun to portray Clark as the villain on this board, but
> he's certainly no rapist, at least according to the law.
But he did commit sexual assualt. If Martha and Lex hadn't arrived, he
might've raped her. Heck, if Martha hadn't arrived with the
Kryptonite, he would've killed Lex and then raped her.
bf
> Times have changed. Ilsa came to Rick on her own and wasn't dragged out of
> the bar by force. There is no comparison. What was POORLY written in that
> episode of Smallville was that NO ONE did anything to stop Clark including
> Lex's security. Why? Because Clark on Red K would have revealed his power
> so the writer's took the liberty of everyone in the room becoming statues to
> make the stupid plot work. And as usual there are NO police anywhere in
> Kansas that night. Why wouldn't Lex call the police to teach Clark a
> lesson? No doubt that would reflect poorly on Martha, a senator holding a
> senate seat that Lex wanted. No doubt that Lionel would get him out of jail
> but it would teach him a lesson. The writing is irrational--fickle.
What's annoying is that the writers will pull about 2-4 episodes a
season where Clark is totally out of control (like Crimson). The
motive for doing this doesn't matter.. The point is that 98% of the
time, there's no consequences for Clark being evil. The 2% of the time
that there is consequences, they are unbelievable minor (such as Lex
actually remembers for a week).
It's not heroic for a superpowered alien to run around out of control
injuring people. In many "bad Clark" episodes, if you had a different
actor doing exactly what Clark was doing, people would have no problem
with that character being killed as justice.. Example.. A meteror
freak uses his powers to make Lois fall in love with him. Later the
freak decides Lana is a more delious target so the freak goes into the
engagement party and does exactly what Clark does. Change the ending
so that Clark kills the freak instead of Martha bringing the
Kryptonite in to save the day, and nobody complains about Clark
killing the freak.. But when Clark does it, it's ok because he's
supposedly the "hero".
BC
Clark volunteered to Lois that Ollie was the Green Arrow and that they just
fooled her. He was on Red K and we knew at the time that if he told her she
would have amnesia--and she did.
>
> Really, it's laughable to think that if Lex knew Clark's secret that
> he'd show up at the Kent farm with a truckload of Kryptonite and
> experiment on Clark forever.
Clearly, Lex does know there is a secret--he told that to Pete when Lex
rescued Pete from the rogue FBI agent, but he never pressed Pete to tell.
And Martha wipes out all this philosophy and introspection by saying it was
an "accident".
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > How many times has Clark butted his nose into other people's secrets?
>>
>> To solve crimes, prevent murder etc? Maybe not enough. He's not Clark
>> the typical teenager.
>
> Why did he have to know Angel's secret? I think it was because Clark
> rationalized that there was a lost watch at stake. LOL.. Which is
> absurd, because Clark could superspeed and Xray vision the town and
> find the damn watch in about 2 seconds. Not to mention, he didn't care
> about the watch hours earlier.
I see Clark and Lex being the same. Both want to know everyone's secret but
don't want anyone to know theirs.
>
> Why did Clark have to pry into Aqua's life just because Aqua saved
> Lois from drowning? What if Clark saved someone's life and a witness
> thought that Clark might be up to "no good" and started prying.. Wait
> a minute.. Lex did that, and Clark threw a hissy fit. How come Lex
> investigating Clark is bad, but Clark investigating Aqua and Angel is
> ok?
Show is from the Clark POV.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > How many times has Clark invaded Lex's privacy? A lot more than Lex has
>> > >invaded Clark's privacy.
>>
>> Highly debateable. To say this dismisses all the evidence of Lex's
>> wrongdoings as circumstanial evidence...this is an OJ defense.
>
> I agree that Lex is not 100% good. I'm just saying that Clark is more
> evil and more dangerous than Lex.
Let's see one loose cannon social deviant with power and money vs. one loose
cannon social deviant with crazy super human powers and a desire to meddle.
I'll take my chances with Lex.
BC
show--I do it too. Lex gets away with very little--he is even suspected
when he's doing good. Clark gets away with murder as we've seen. The show
is about him and the writing is Clark-centric. Maybe there is a type of fan
that can't see these character/plot flaws. This show isn't written for the
thinking person.
>
BC
> On Apr 12, 10:45 am, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying this will happen--it seems that nearly all the women are
>> heading toward the land of the Amazons on this show. Lois' super
>> boyfriends
>> are impotent and dump her, Chloe has a boyfriend but pines for Clark,
>> Lana
>> is brutalized mentally and physically by both male leads and any freak
>> that
>> comes along. Clark can't perform even when hypnotized.
>> BC
>>
>
> Not to mention that Jimmy is a totally emasculated male that worships
> Chloe and follows her around like a puppy dog, while she seldom
> returns his effection. He temporarily was a man in one episode when
> he broke up with Chloe, but in a very Lana-like way, Jimmy gave Chloe
> unconditional forgiveness the next week.
This is also a typical female attitude (forgiveness) and supports what I'm
saying--the writing is fickle.
>
> Actually I think Jimmy and Lana share a lot of common traits. Jimmy is
> to Chloe as Lana is to Clark..
May be intentional.
>
> While I see a lot of your points about how women are portrayed, I
> think Lana is portrayed as a weak and stupid woman who makes many poor
> choices. Also, she has no identity of her own outside the male she is
> currently dating. This is ironic, as she's supposedly the main female
> lead, and she's the weakest (and the most pathetic) woman on the cast.
Disagree. She has been shown to be intelligent--restoring the Talon--a
excellent student etc. She also has taken on the bad guys and won--Van
MacNulty--Morgan Edge thug in the barn--Adam--etc. What she is though is a
victim of Clark's existence--with her parents death and the freaks that
attack her. She is like a femme fatale to Calrk without being a villain.
She keeps Clark's obsession going--she won't just say no to him. She's
maybe a true femme fatale to Lex--keeping secrets and not being truthful to
him and that keeps him guessing and suspicious--fueling an obsession similar
to Clark's. This they have made her up to look sick and victimized by Lex
and associates. I see Lana as having real strength--strength to marry Lex
for her baby and not love and I see Lois as having only a superficial
strength--she falls for every superhero that will not have sex with her and
will dump her to go out and destroy something. Chloe is just a softee--she
cries easily--but that is fine with me.
>
> Early in the season, you could feel some sympathy for Lana, but she's
> made so many dumb choices that it's hard to feel sorry for her. Her
> best choice was to hook up with Lex, and she keeps trying to sabotage
> that.
Hooking up with Lex for the reason she did was fine--but that reason is gone
now. She also knows Clark's secret and they haven't done anything with that
yet.
BC
>
>
>
>
>
BC
done and he should remember that he had a lot of fun with Alicia in Vegas
and that he truly wanted to marry her and that he was the one that suggested
it--not her. But when the Red K wears off it isn't pussy that is on his
mind--he once again is a hot head and is angry--and he's NOT on Red K. If
it was so easy to get the marriage annulled then why not stay with her for a
bit and have fun? He's an idiot.
BC
>
BC
If not in the legal sense it was rape in the literal sense. It was
kidnapping in the legal sense. It was assault on Lex in the legal sense.
He would have probably killed Lex and there would still be no police called.
>
>
>
>
Scotsman
> Clark dragged Lana to the barn against her will and made unwelcome
> sexual advances. Lex and Lana should've pressed charges.
To whom? We've already established there are no cops in Smallville
> But he did commit sexual assualt. If Martha and Lex hadn't arrived, he
> might've raped her. Heck, if Martha hadn't arrived with the
> Kryptonite, he would've killed Lex and then raped her.
Wow, so here's a show the CW is selling as a Superman origin story and
they've tricked us into rooting for an evil, serial rapist and mass
murderer. That's a helluva marketing dept. there.
bf
> Clark volunteered to Lois that Ollie was the Green Arrow and that they just
> fooled her. He was on Red K and we knew at the time that if he told her she
> would have amnesia--and she did.
Actually, I forgot about that. I was thinking of Clark blabbing
Ollie's secret to Chloe.
Imagine if someone told Lana's cousin Clark's secret. Clark would be
enraged.
Also, Angel was trying to maintain a secret identity at the planet and
fight crime, but Clark had to expose her as well.
He also had to nose into Aqua's business. He puts his nose into
everyone's business that displays a power. Yet, no one is allowed to
ask Clark anything about his life. No one is allowed to even
investigate all the wierd stuff Clark has been involved in. What if
someone investigated why Clark misbehaved in Crimson? Do you think
Clark would accept that? I doubt it.. Yet it's ok for Clark to
investigate people who don't even break any laws.. Just displaying an
ability is enough reason for Clark to nose into their lives.
> I see Clark and Lex being the same. Both want to know everyone's secret but
> don't want anyone to know theirs.
True, but I think Clark is more violent and has less respect for the
law than Lex does.
Ultimately, they both have their own selfish motives.
bf
>
> > While I see a lot of your points about how women are portrayed, I
> > think Lana is portrayed as a weak and stupid woman who makes many poor
> > choices. Also, she has no identity of her own outside the male she is
> > currently dating. This is ironic, as she's supposedly the main female
> > lead, and she's the weakest (and the most pathetic) woman on the cast.
>
> Disagree. She has been shown to be intelligent--restoring the Talon--a
> excellent student etc. She also has taken on the bad guys and won--Van
> MacNulty--Morgan Edge thug in the barn--Adam--etc.
I agree that she used to be a strong character. Dating Clark turned
her into mush though. She's now a mindless puppet that craves Clark.
There were hints of potential when she was going to study astronomy
and investigate the aliens, but all that was dropped.
> I see Lana as having real strength--strength to marry Lex
> for her baby and not love
It's debatable, but Lana has said she loved Lex. Even when she was
about to leave Lex at the altar she said "Is my love for Lex enough?"
Basically, she loves Lex, but she's an idiot and wants Clark more.
Even though Lex is her 2nd choice, she still loves him, IMO.
> and I see Lois as having only a superficial
> strength--she falls for every superhero that will not have sex with her and
> will dump her to go out and destroy something. Chloe is just a softee--she
> cries easily--but that is fine with me.
I see Lois as primarily eye-candy and comic relief. No depth at all.
Chloe used to be an interesting character, but now she's just Clark's
private internet connection. She hasn't had an interesting story in
years. Even though she has a boyfriend now, we don't see her have any
kind of life beyond existing to serve Clark.
Really, it's gotten to the point where I don't really care about any
of the characters anymore. If Chloe dies or becomes a freak or
whatever, I don't care. It's mindless amusement. It's such a bad show
that it's entertaining to chat about.
> Hooking up with Lex for the reason she did was fine--but that reason is gone
> now. She also knows Clark's secret and they haven't done anything with that
> yet.
>
IMO, she hooked up with Lex because Lex listened to her, gave her
affection, and cared about her. Clark gave her none of those things.
What has Lana wanted in every boyfriend? Someone to listen to her talk
and reciprocate love. Whitney and Jason gave her that for awhile and
she was happy. Heck, Adam gave her that initially too. It doesn't take
that much to make Lana happy; look how many chances she gave Clark
(foolishly). When she goes back to Clark, I see her as the biggest
idiot ever on TV. She knows he won't give her what she wants, while
Lex will.
bf
>
> The strange part of the Red K influence is that Clark can remember what he's
> done and he should remember that he had a lot of fun with Alicia in Vegas
> and that he truly wanted to marry her and that he was the one that suggested
> it--not her. But when the Red K wears off it isn't pussy that is on his
> mind--he once again is a hot head and is angry--and he's NOT on Red K. If
> it was so easy to get the marriage annulled then why not stay with her for a
> bit and have fun? He's an idiot.
> BC
>
Did they ever say that it was officially annuled? I don't think so. I
think Clark decided to wait on death to end the marriage.
The interesting part about the Red K in the Alicia episode was that
Clark was that he didn't turn into a violent maniac. I'm going to
assume that deep down Clark really did want to marry Alicia. He surely
wasn't driven by lust.. If it was lust driven, he wouldn't have
bothered to marry Alicia. Also, we've seen that Red K doesn't give
Clark lust.. He left a naked and willing Lois in Crimson, and didn't
lose his virginity during the Metropolis crime spree. Therefore, I
think we can conclude Clark has no sex drive even when uninhibited.
So, since Red K doesn't give Clark lust, he must've wanted to marry
Alicia deep down, but his inhibited self didn't want to admit it.
Although it's puzzling that Clark dealt with this conflict by turning
a cold shoulder to his wife after the Red K was removed. Another
interesting note is that Clark seems to have a difficult time with
forgiveness. I mean, I think most men would find it in their heart to
forgive Alicia in Clark's shoes, and not because she's hot.. But Clark
turned very cold to her. His way of coping was to turn her in for
murder.
We also see Clark has difficulty in forgiving Lex and even Chloe. He's
constantly suspicious of Chloe. Lionel will never gain his trust,
although that's understandable to me.
The only person Clark seemed able to forgive was Jorel, and it pretty
much took Jorel's death to do that. (I'm assuming Jorel was not
resurrected with the fortress, since he hasn't appeared since).
bf
> On Apr 16, 10:32 am, "bf" <bford...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Clark dragged Lana to the barn against her will and made unwelcome
> > sexual advances. Lex and Lana should've pressed charges.
>
> To whom? We've already established there are no cops in Smallville
LOL.. I guess Lex could've called in an illegal alien siting at the
Kent farm.. then the cops would've swarmed the place.
>
> > But he did commit sexual assualt. If Martha and Lex hadn't arrived, he
> > might've raped her. Heck, if Martha hadn't arrived with the
> > Kryptonite, he would've killed Lex and then raped her.
>
> Wow, so here's a show the CW is selling as a Superman origin story and
> they've tricked us into rooting for an evil, serial rapist and mass
> murderer. That's a helluva marketing dept. there.
Actually, my guess is that the writers do laugh at people that defend
everything Clark does as right (not saying you are one of them). They
clearly have wanted to make this Clark Kent a very flawed person.
Even though Clark has extraordinary luck (Lionel, Lana, and Lex
should've been dead by Clark's hands several times.. no man could
withstand the super tosses Clark has given to those characters).. In
contrast, Lex has bad luck. A simple fist fight kills the doctor in
the Crypt..
BC
> On Apr 16, 11:52 am, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>> Clark volunteered to Lois that Ollie was the Green Arrow and that they
>> just
>> fooled her. He was on Red K and we knew at the time that if he told her
>> she
>> would have amnesia--and she did.
>
> Actually, I forgot about that. I was thinking of Clark blabbing
> Ollie's secret to Chloe.
> Imagine if someone told Lana's cousin Clark's secret. Clark would be
> enraged.
>
> Also, Angel was trying to maintain a secret identity at the planet and
> fight crime, but Clark had to expose her as well.
The shoe on the other foot: Would Clark want someone exposing him? NO.
>
> He also had to nose into Aqua's business. He puts his nose into
> everyone's business that displays a power. Yet, no one is allowed to
> ask Clark anything about his life. No one is allowed to even
> investigate all the wierd stuff Clark has been involved in. What if
> someone investigated why Clark misbehaved in Crimson? Do you think
> Clark would accept that? I doubt it.. Yet it's ok for Clark to
> investigate people who don't even break any laws.. Just displaying an
> ability is enough reason for Clark to nose into their lives.
>
>
>> I see Clark and Lex being the same. Both want to know everyone's secret
>> but
>> don't want anyone to know theirs.
>
> True, but I think Clark is more violent and has less respect for the
> law than Lex does.
Yes. Remember when Lionel's mistress showed up thinking that Clark was her
kid? And they did a DNA test? Clark went with Pete and broke into the
police lab and tore open a stainless locked cabinet--destroying the
door--just to substitute Pete's spit.
> Ultimately, they both have their own selfish motives.
Question is: would Lex be the way he is if Calrk had never come to Earth?
Is Lex a creature of Clark's making?
BC
>
>
>
>
>
BC
Ford's well placed product ads in the first 3 seasons have worked too--every
other show they wrecked a Dodge truck and now Daimler wants to sell
Chrysler--the moral being that you have to be Superman to survive one of
those trucks.
BC
technique. Clark uses a different system--the Wo Iz Mi exploding head
technique--where stilted dialog and repeating plot devices turn the other
character's brains to tofu.
BC
BC
For sure. Why post on a forum for House or Desperate Housewives? Those
shows are perfect.
>
>
>
>> Hooking up with Lex for the reason she did was fine--but that reason is
>> gone
>> now. She also knows Clark's secret and they haven't done anything with
>> that
>> yet.
>>
>
> IMO, she hooked up with Lex because Lex listened to her, gave her
> affection, and cared about her. Clark gave her none of those things.
> What has Lana wanted in every boyfriend? Someone to listen to her talk
> and reciprocate love. Whitney and Jason gave her that for awhile and
> she was happy. Heck, Adam gave her that initially too. It doesn't take
> that much to make Lana happy; look how many chances she gave Clark
> (foolishly). When she goes back to Clark, I see her as the biggest
> idiot ever on TV. She knows he won't give her what she wants, while
> Lex will.
Lana hooked up with Lex originally because he cared but it was the baby that
pushed it over the edge to love. That is why I thought that it would have
been good to have developed a plot that showed that Lex set up the pregnancy
or faked it, just to get Lana to marry him. A Zod baby would have been good
or even a Clark baby too. Right now we have nothing--it went NO WHERE.
Maybe they will stir up the ashes for a later show but right now it looks
forgotten.
I wish I'd had ONE girfriend since college that was as easy to please as
Lana and then I would thank God each day for her looks.
BC
BC
> On Apr 16, 12:23 pm, "BC" <bcph...@core.com> wrote:
>>
>> The strange part of the Red K influence is that Clark can remember what
>> he's
>> done and he should remember that he had a lot of fun with Alicia in Vegas
>> and that he truly wanted to marry her and that he was the one that
>> suggested
>> it--not her. But when the Red K wears off it isn't pussy that is on his
>> mind--he once again is a hot head and is angry--and he's NOT on Red K.
>> If
>> it was so easy to get the marriage annulled then why not stay with her
>> for a
>> bit and have fun? He's an idiot.
>> BC
>>
>
> Did they ever say that it was officially annuled? I don't think so. I
> think Clark decided to wait on death to end the marriage.
Martha said it I'm sure. And as Clark said, "what is the big deal?"
(parapharse context)
>
> The interesting part about the Red K in the Alicia episode was that
> Clark was that he didn't turn into a violent maniac. I'm going to
> assume that deep down Clark really did want to marry Alicia. He surely
> wasn't driven by lust.. If it was lust driven, he wouldn't have
> bothered to marry Alicia. Also, we've seen that Red K doesn't give
> Clark lust.. He left a naked and willing Lois in Crimson, and didn't
> lose his virginity during the Metropolis crime spree. Therefore, I
> think we can conclude Clark has no sex drive even when uninhibited.
You'd think living around all those farm animals would have taught him
something. He had the opportunity to score with Alicia with a bit of smooth
talk but opted to marry her instead. He came up with that on RED K too.
>
> So, since Red K doesn't give Clark lust, he must've wanted to marry
> Alicia deep down, but his inhibited self didn't want to admit it.
> Although it's puzzling that Clark dealt with this conflict by turning
> a cold shoulder to his wife after the Red K was removed. Another
> interesting note is that Clark seems to have a difficult time with
> forgiveness. I mean, I think most men would find it in their heart to
> forgive Alicia in Clark's shoes, and not because she's hot.. But Clark
> turned very cold to her. His way of coping was to turn her in for
> murder.
Clark didn't apply the same logic to Lana. He had sex with her and didn't
mention marriage and he was without powers. After regaining his strength
and knowing he couldn't have sex with her, or thinking it, he then proposes.
Fickle writing.
Christopher M.
>
> So, since Red K doesn't give Clark lust, he must've wanted to marry
> Alicia deep down, but his inhibited self didn't want to admit it.
Maybe his inhibited, more rational and less emotional self realized that he
and Alicia weren't compatible.
Alicia was a Celt like Chloe. Clark seems more Norman to me.
Anim8rFSK
"BC" <bcp...@core.com> wrote:
> "bf" <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1176329007.9...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Apr 10, 12:14 am, Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinit...@peaksky.com>
> > wrote:
> >> In article <1175630755.924472.111...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> bford...@yahoo.com (bf) says...
> >>
> >> > The other poster made a good point. Isn't Clark supposed to be
> >> > likable? Aren't we supposed to be sympathetic towards him? He's not
> >> > likable.
> >>
> >> You have to do *something* to make him interesting. He's about as
> >> repressed and hung up as it is possible for a young guy to be. I like
> >> red kryptonite Clark better than the vanilla flavor.
> >
> > True, they can't have Clark be a totally boring goody-two-shoes.
> > On the other hand, they don't have to make him pshycotic to make him
> > interesting.
> >
> > Case in point. Why didn't they have Lana dump Clark instead of the way
> > it played out? Have Lana see Clark and Hypno chick naked together and
> > say "It's over".
> > That way, Lana doesn't appear to be a doormat (for a change), and then
> > you actually feel a little bit sorry for Clark since he was set up.
> >
> > Instead, Clark dumps Lana and then cries when he can't get her back on
> > a whim?
>
> Maybe it was written by a woman that would like to see the guy dump the
> girl?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> They took a comic character from the '50s and plunked him down in a
> >> modern post-pill culture where everybody but Clark is getting laid on a
> >> regular basis. The boy is seriously maladjusted,
> >
> > That's the truth. The Kents did a poor job raising Clark.
> >
> When the series began, it was odd that Clark acted like he didn't know Lana
> and she grew up living next door with Nell--3 yrs before 1st grade and then
> grades 1-8, so 11 years and he barely knows her. I'd say he was a sheltered
> child.
> BC
didn't she have that kryptonite necklace her whole life? Any time he
went near her he barfed.
Larry Caldwell
media.com>, ANIM...@cox.net (Anim8rFSK) says...
> didn't she have that kryptonite necklace her whole life? Any time he
> went near her he barfed.
No, she only got the kryptonite after the meteor shower that killed her
parents. Since she was pretty young, it's not clear how long after the
meteor shower she had the meteor rock made into a necklace.
Was that her parents' farm, or did she only move there after they died,
to stay with Nell? Maybe Nell got the life insurance?
--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.
BC
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-E9F1A...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
Seems unlikely that a 3 year old would wear a necklace like that or even a
10 year old. If she wore it that much how come she isn't a freak? Many of
the freaks got that way from a very brief exposure. Besides it is only in
the Pilot when Clark is 15 that he figures aout that Kryptonite hurts him.
So my take is that Lana just started wearing the necklace freshman year.
BC
Scotsman
> > Wow, so here's a show the CW is selling as a Superman origin story and
> > they've tricked us into rooting for an evil, serial rapist and mass
> > murderer. That's a helluva marketing dept. there.
>
> Actually, my guess is that the writers do laugh at people that defend
> everything Clark does as right (not saying you are one of them). They
> clearly have wanted to make this Clark Kent a very flawed person.
> Even though Clark has extraordinary luck (Lionel, Lana, and Lex
> should've been dead by Clark's hands several times.. no man could
> withstand the super tosses Clark has given to those characters).. In
> contrast, Lex has bad luck. A simple fist fight kills the doctor in
> the Crypt..
Actually, I'm not.
I wonder if the writers shake their heads when people interpret the
show as "Lex Luther: Misunderstood Hero." (not saying you're one of
them). ;)
bf
> I wish I'd had ONE girfriend since college that was as easy to please as
> Lana and then I would thank God each day for her looks.
> BC
I know. That's what's kind of funny about Lana. Even when she was the
cheerleader and dating the football captain, she was low maintenance.
It seems all you need to do is tell her everything, listen to her, and
give her a roll in the hay every once in a while. Clark couldn't do
any of those things. But.. on the other hand, it seems that when
there is no trouble, she starts looking for things to get suspicious
about. That would get old.
Lana: "Honey, what's this $7.33 charge on the credit card.. I want
the truth.. No secrets or lies"..
Man: "Dear, it's just lunch"..
Lana: "Then how come I have this picture of you with Mr Whizzie at
the same time the charge was made"
Man: "Lana, I don't know.. I forget. It was 2 weeks ago".
Lana: "Lies, Lies. You must tell me your secret".
Ultimately, I think Lana is the type that would complain about the
relationship getting "boring".
bf
> > Did they ever say that it was officially annuled? I don't think so. I
> > think Clark decided to wait on death to end the marriage.
>
> Martha said it I'm sure. And as Clark said, "what is the big deal?"
> (parapharse context)
Ok, I believe you. I just don't remember that detail.
> You'd think living around all those farm animals would have taught him
> something. He had the opportunity to score with Alicia with a bit of smooth
> talk but opted to marry her instead. He came up with that on RED K too.
I still think Clark has no sex drive at all. He's totally asexual. No
interest at all.
He'd rather beat the crap out of people. Lois is naked in front of
him, and his focus is on what's inside her coat pocket? How many
times has Clark had a naked woman with him, begging for it, and he is
either bored or scared to death? Many times.
He doesn't even like kissing.
>
>
> Clark didn't apply the same logic to Lana. He had sex with her and didn't
> mention marriage and he was without powers. After regaining his strength
> and knowing he couldn't have sex with her, or thinking it, he then proposes.
> Fickle writing.
Yes, the writing is so fickle, it can not be logically explained.
Clark dumps Lana but then changes his mind when Lex gets interested.
Clark breaks up supposedly because of the "secret", but then is
willing to spill the secret to ruin Lex's wedding.
That tells me that Clark was not withholding the secret to protect
Lana. If his true motive was to protect Lana, why would he tell her
the secret on her wedding day?
bf
wrote:
> > So, since Red K doesn't give Clark lust, he must've wanted to marry
> > Alicia deep down, but his inhibited self didn't want to admit it.
>
> Maybe his inhibited, more rational and less emotional self realized that he
> and Alicia weren't compatible.
>
Too bad that his more inhibited self can't realize that Clark and Lana
are totally incompatible as well. That's what's mind boggling. They
dated for about 4 years and were miserable, yet they both irrationally
think that each other is "The One"??
BC
There are no heroes on this show except maybe Jimmy who is heroic but not
yet a hero. It would be better if Calrk and Jimmy held onto some Green K
and waited for the lightning that would transfer Clark's power to Jimmy.
That way we would have a hero with a conscience and Clark could get laid
(again).
BC
bf
wrote:
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E9F1AD.19124216042...@news.phx.highwinds-
> media.com>, ANIM8R...@cox.net (Anim8rFSK) says...
>
> > didn't she have that kryptonite necklace her whole life? Any time he
> > went near her he barfed.
>
> No, she only got the kryptonite after the meteor shower that killed her
> parents. Since she was pretty young, it's not clear how long after the
> meteor shower she had the meteor rock made into a necklace.
>
> Was that her parents' farm, or did she only move there after they died,
> to stay with Nell? Maybe Nell got the life insurance?
>
I'm not positive, but I thought it was Lana's parents farm. When that
girl with the powers to pull Clark into her dreams moved into the
house, didn't they say it belonged to Lana's parents? Maybe I'm wrong
though.
BC
bf
>
> Actually, I'm not.
>
> I wonder if the writers shake their heads when people interpret the
> show as "Lex Luther: Misunderstood Hero." (not saying you're one of
> them). ;)
Actually, I think the writers do want the audience to like Lex.
Otherwise, why would he have been so good to Lana? Why would he have
saved the day many times?
Many the ultimate motive is to set up the final "evil" transformation
and leave us thinking.. "Wow, what a tradegy, Lex really started off
as a good guy, but lost the struggle".
It was clear early in the series that Lex was appearing to win the
moral war and reject his father's teachings. Since then, the show has
become a mess.. Lionel is good now, so that kind of ruins the entire
premise of Lex being raised as a monster.
Thus we are now only left with "Lex has a dark side". Despite the
fact that Clark is much darker than Lex.
I do agree, the show wasn't intended to have a surprise ending where
Lex ends up being the superhero. However, for the majority of the
episodes, Lex has been good.
Clark has had more evil episodes than Lex.