Thoroughly disappointed by Clark's selfishness [Archive]

ryb

10-15-2005, 10:11 PM

You know, reading some of your opinions on Clark Kent's characterization in this show, I can't help but want to fall down and hit my head on something hard.

I don't mean to sound patronizing or insulting, but people! I mean, if there is one iota of difference between the Clark Kent you believe should be and the Clark Kent that is presented in Smallville, it's as if the whole world is crashing around you. Here is what I do to handle the Clark Kent that I see on Smallville:

1) I realize that Smallville is an *interpretation* of the Superman evolution. It is not *the* story; it's merely a modern look at it.
2) Clark Kent is *not* Superman yet. He isn't "automatically" Superman, and some traits, such as a global selflessness rather than a personal selfishness have to be learned. They are not innate by any means. Selflessness is certainly not a "natural" trait anyway. It's definitely human tendency to act selfishly (survival instinct) and not selflessly; I don't see why Clark Kent has to be any different.
3) One of the show's primary themes, if not its primary theme, is that Clark Kent's desires are constantly battling his destiny. Clark Kent wants to be normal, but he is destined for greater things because of his gifts. For the past four years, we have seen Clark Kent slowly but surely realize that his destiny is more important than his desire. And sometimes that lesson is one best served cold (as in "Hidden"). The question will be: How will Clark learn this lesson and use it in the future?

I've said it in previous posts, and I'll say it again. While comparison to other Superman mythologies/stories is certainly valid, it is not absolute. Smallville is not the movies and is not the comics. If it were, I wouldn't take the time to watch it. It would be a simple re-hash and, as a result, uninteresting. Smallville is an interpretation with a different look on it. I like how the show's writers have placed these characters in moral/ethical/personal gray areas. Nothing is black-and-white, purely good or purely evil. It's not clear-cut and, therefore, more realistic. Clark Kent doesn't have to be perfect from the start, and I daresay he shouldn't be because at that point...wouldn't we be watching Superman?

xrayvision

10-15-2005, 11:00 PM

He should have made a deal with Jor-El in Arrival where he can have more time if needed to stop those 2 when immediately after he would return to Jor-El. But the problem with this is that the season just wouldn't have a story since Clark would then stay with Jor-El until he became Superman.

What they should have done is have him stay with Jor-El to at least learn a new power (which I hope they give him soon).

Right now, it seems like Smallville is going to be a rip-off of Spider-Man (just like how Peter Parker learns that with great power comes great responsibility when his uncle dies, Clark will learn the same with whoever it is will die). I hope they change this darkest hour thing with something where Clark does something where he makes such a big sacrifice that Jor-El is able to stop this death. Superman is just not supposed to be a tragic hero.

Reign

10-15-2005, 11:43 PM

ryb, I understand your position on this matter... however, there are some purists among us who do not proscribe to the realism that you attribute to the smallville character...

to many, Superman is an American icon. he is an ideal and he is immortal. the legend, i think, should have some contants within it... and even if this is a younger version of him, i think those constants need to be adhered to. he's more than man, he's more than just a teenager. the clark kent at the beginning of the series knew this... the clark kent that we have now is less than the clark we have known for decades...

this is not a story about how a man becomes superman... this is a story about how the super acquired the man

ryb

10-16-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Reign
ryb, I understand your position on this matter... however, there are some purists among us who do not proscribe to the realism that you attribute to the smallville character...

to many, Superman is an American icon. he is an ideal and he is immortal. the legend, i think, should have some contants within it... and even if this is a younger version of him, i think those constants need to be adhered to. he's more than man, he's more than just a teenager. the clark kent at the beginning of the series knew this... the clark kent that we have now is less than the clark we have known for decades...

this is not a story about how a man becomes superman... this is a story about how the super acquired the man

And I understand the purist viewpoint also, but your argument is confirming the very thing I'm observing.

This is not a "younger version of him" where him references Superman. This is a younger version of Clark Kent. Clark Kent in this series is not Superman. This is not the Clark Kent we know and love in the movies and in the comics. This is the younger Clark Kent. And I'm asking: Why can't this character *become* Superman rather than just *ease into* Superman? To me, the latter would be boring while the former is much more interesting and powerful.

Thus, to understand and to reason the character of Clark Kent on this show, you cannot equate him to Superman because Superman does not exist yet.

I agree that some constants should be kept, but I think this is being done. Clark Kent is certainly a good man, one who protects the lives of others without at all taking credit for it. He certainly uses his powers for good things. These constants are undeniable. His origins are similar, and the characters in the mythology are similar. I'm not sure if more constants are necessary or even desirable because we start to approach re-treading.

As for your last statement, I really have no idea what you mean. How the super acquired the man? What in the world does that mean? As for Smallville, I believe it is exactly a story about how this man becomes Superman. Not that we can really say anything about it yet since the show is not complete...

Bottom line: A purist attitude is fine, but don't expect Smallville to satisfy that philosophy. Smallville was never meant to adhere to the Superman mythology 100%.

Ultron

10-16-2005, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Timester
He didn't knew about Smallville when he was at the FOS.

Er, yes he did. Just watch the show again up to the point Clark was shot. Why do you think they were looking for Gabriel in missile silos and wanted to draw him out?

Clark had no choice when his powers were taken away, and wasn't actually given a choice when Jor-El/Lionel gave him back his powers.

Furthermore he saved Smallville in Arrival from two Kryptonians as well as in this episode from a nuclear missile.

Timester

10-16-2005, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by Ultron
Er, yes he did. Just watch the show again up to the point Clark was shot. Why do you think they were looking for Gabriel in missile silos and wanted to draw him out?

Clark had no choice when his powers were taken away, and wasn't actually given a choice when Jor-El/Lionel gave him back his powers.

Furthermore he saved Smallville in Arrival from two Kryptonians as well as in this episode from a nuclear missile.

I talked about "Arrival", not "Hidden".

Originally posted by ryb
And I understand the purist viewpoint also, but your argument is confirming the very thing I'm observing.

This is not a "younger version of him" where him references Superman. This is a younger version of Clark Kent. Clark Kent in this series is not Superman. This is not the Clark Kent we know and love in the movies and in the comics. This is the younger Clark Kent. And I'm asking: Why can't this character *become* Superman rather than just *ease into* Superman? To me, the latter would be boring while the former is much more interesting and powerful.

Thus, to understand and to reason the character of Clark Kent on this show, you cannot equate him to Superman because Superman does not exist yet.

I agree that some constants should be kept, but I think this is being done. Clark Kent is certainly a good man, one who protects the lives of others without at all taking credit for it. He certainly uses his powers for good things. These constants are undeniable. His origins are similar, and the characters in the mythology are similar. I'm not sure if more constants are necessary or even desirable because we start to approach re-treading.

As for your last statement, I really have no idea what you mean. How the super acquired the man? What in the world does that mean? As for Smallville, I believe it is exactly a story about how this man becomes Superman. Not that we can really say anything about it yet since the show is not complete...

Bottom line: A purist attitude is fine, but don't expect Smallville to satisfy that philosophy. Smallville was never meant to adhere to the Superman mythology 100%.

Actually, has nothing to do with purism. A young Clark Kent is not Peter Parker, as much AlMiles want to change that. The 80s and early 90s already passed on. Even DC is going back to the heroic icon superheroes. Changing some mythos is good, but copying other unrelated mythos and changing the core of a character is not.

Superman it's way more than a simple name, it's what the hero represents and without Clark Kent, there is no Superman (unless SV Clark will become UltraLad, the mooping superhero tier 2 of the JLA).

Devoted to Clark

10-16-2005, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by ryb
You know, reading some of your opinions on Clark Kent's characterization in this show, I can't help but want to fall down and hit my head on something hard.

I don't mean to sound patronizing or insulting, but people! I mean, if there is one iota of difference between the Clark Kent you believe should be and the Clark Kent that is presented in Smallville, it's as if the whole world is crashing around you. Here is what I do to handle the Clark Kent that I see on Smallville:

1) I realize that Smallville is an *interpretation* of the Superman evolution. It is not *the* story; it's merely a modern look at it.
2) Clark Kent is *not* Superman yet. He isn't "automatically" Superman, and some traits, such as a global selflessness rather than a personal selfishness have to be learned. They are not innate by any means. Selflessness is certainly not a "natural" trait anyway. It's definitely human tendency to act selfishly (survival instinct) and not selflessly; I don't see why Clark Kent has to be any different.
3) One of the show's primary themes, if not its primary theme, is that Clark Kent's desires are constantly battling his destiny. Clark Kent wants to be normal, but he is destined for greater things because of his gifts. For the past four years, we have seen Clark Kent slowly but surely realize that his destiny is more important than his desire. And sometimes that lesson is one best served cold (as in "Hidden"). The question will be: How will Clark learn this lesson and use it in the future?

I've said it in previous posts, and I'll say it again. While comparison to other Superman mythologies/stories is certainly valid, it is not absolute. Smallville is not the movies and is not the comics. If it were, I wouldn't take the time to watch it. It would be a simple re-hash and, as a result, uninteresting. Smallville is an interpretation with a different look on it. I like how the show's writers have placed these characters in moral/ethical/personal gray areas. Nothing is black-and-white, purely good or purely evil. It's not clear-cut and, therefore, more realistic. Clark Kent doesn't have to be perfect from the start, and I daresay he shouldn't be because at that point...wouldn't we be watching Superman?

Well said, ryb. My thoughts exactly!

rosewolfe87

10-16-2005, 12:54 PM

And then he gave up being mortal, the one thing he has always wanted. To SAVE Smallville.

Timester

10-16-2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by rosewolfe87
And then he gave up being mortal, the one thing he has always wanted. To SAVE Smallville.

Uh? Since when he gave up? He was shot and Jor-El was forced to take life-force from someone so Clark could survive and fulfill his destiny. If Clark, in the first place, never run from his destiny (like he did in season 2, 3 and 4), this would never happen. :confused:

superman_115

10-16-2005, 01:18 PM

Like Superboy didn't make mistakes in the comics.

Like someone said, Clark isn't Superman yet and he has to become stronger by learning from his mistakes and now, the biggest mistake will be losing the person he loves when he was mortal.

That alone, will make Clark Superman and realizing his mistake.

Timester

10-16-2005, 02:10 PM

You are still not getting what "Superman" is. "Superman" is a name turned to a symbol by Clark Kent. Clark is the core of "Superman". And doesn't become Superman out of guilty (like they are making in Smallville)...

But who am I kidding here? They already lightswitched Lex, so lightswitching Clark isn't farfetched.

HalJordan4184

10-16-2005, 04:48 PM

Exactly. Clark isn't driven to being Superman through personal tragedy. That's the thing that supposedly set him apart from other superheroes. He genuinely wanted to just be a superhero. He was raised that whatever talents and gifts he had, weren't his alone. They were there for the benefit of all mankind. That's how we judge a good man, and a not so good one. A good man shares what he has with everyone else, no matter how bnig or little. And that's Clark's driving philosophy. He's the most powerful being on earth, and as such, should help in a super way.

Not, he has superpowers, but due to some inaction or wrong decision on his part, was party to the death of a beloved person in his life, and he spends the rest of his days fighting crime so he can feel less guilty at night, and avenge that death.

President_Luthor

10-16-2005, 06:21 PM

I think Clark's loft chat with Chloe demonstrates that he ... just ... doesn't ... get it.

This has nothing to do with whether Clark belongs in this or that 'ship, but with Clark having the willingness to step up to the plate and take whatever lumps come with telling "the girl he loves" the truth.

Chloe said it best: whether or not Lana doesn't take the truth as well as she did, he "owes" her the option to make that choice. He's SLEEPING with her, after all! Clark's 'too many sacrifices' excuse doesn't wash at all, IMHO. Now -- after four years of lies and secrets, dead FOTWs, Kent betrayal of the Rosses -- he decides that secrets are still the way to go with Lana! To protect her? To protect himself? He knows someone's life will be exchanged for his resurrection. Even though Lana's life is probably not at the top of that who-will-die list, he doesn't know that is certain. Would he not want to be able to look her in the eye and be able to say that he was honest with her -- finally?

What he apparently has difficulty with is having the courage to face the consequences for his lies. Someone's going to die (because he was late for a Jor-El appointment) and it looks like it will take that fateful sacrifice to force Clark into claiming his destiny. Meanwhile, many peoples' lives will be wrecked in his name: the Kents, Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. etc.

And all he'll be able to offer as justification is: I had to lie ... to protect people. The superhuman cop-out continues ... :\

Shadow09

10-16-2005, 06:43 PM

I agree totally... he didn't think things through... he didn't the see the whole picture and just went through it anyway and decided not to listen to this father... this will teach him something now, so while it will be sad to see someone go... it will be good to see what happens with Clark

DarkClone

10-16-2005, 06:55 PM

Over the past few seasons, he has given up friendships, being w/ a girl he has been in love w/ for over a decade, and any chance of having a normal life. He has saved countless lives, over and over, and never once taken credit or asked for anything in return . . . I doubt there is anyone around these boards who would do that . . .

as a character he is incredibly unselfish . . . and he didn't put mortality first, he accepted his powers back, and the consequence of his choice because he knew he had to save everyone.

And now, he thinks he's going to give up the girl he loves AGAIN, because he knows who he has to be now . . .

and as stated before, becoming superman is certainly not an overnight transition, remember, he's still a kid

hbkid21

10-16-2005, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Timester
You are still not getting what "Superman" is. "Superman" is a name turned to a symbol by Clark Kent. Clark is the core of "Superman". And doesn't become Superman out of guilty (like they are making in Smallville)...

But who am I kidding here? They already lightswitched Lex, so lightswitching Clark isn't farfetched.

I get what you saying, but you may be forgetting that this is the modern day Clark Kent. Peter Parker grandfather died after he got his power, he became Spider Man. Clark Kent isn't going to become SuperMan because someone he loved die. This is the modern day Clark Kent and at 18, he not going to get the big picture. I could understand the Clark Kent back in the 50's and so on and maybe the 90's, but now a simple old school Clark Kent would not match the current times. Even if Pa Kent dies, that will not be the reason he become Superman even though when Pa Kent died in the first movie, they leave you the conclusion that he became SuperMan for that very reason.

Summers

10-16-2005, 09:00 PM

It was Peter Parker's uncle that died lol....Uncle Ben.

It's not the big picture. Heck, even the CK of the any era didn't see the big picture but he still had morals and ethics that uphold the Superman legacy. SV CK no longer has them. CK at 18 in the other continuities would give Lana full disclosure, and would haven been worried in "Arrival" and "Mortal" over the safety of Smallville.

Reign

10-16-2005, 09:31 PM

I don't expect them to adhere to everything, because there are too many contradictions in his past... but his mythos should remain in tact... he is not supposed to be a reluctant hero... The first two seasons showed him embracing his abilities and finding ways to use them... that's what I expected to see...

Someone said it best on this board when they said that Superman is not meant to be a tragic hero. That is what he's becoming on Smallville. That is not a small change...

ryb

10-16-2005, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Reign
I don't expect them to adhere to everything, because there are too many contradictions in his past... but his mythos should remain in tact... he is not supposed to be a reluctant hero... The first two seasons showed him embracing his abilities and finding ways to use them... that's what I expected to see...

Someone said it best on this board when they said that Superman is not meant to be a tragic hero. That is what he's becoming on Smallville. That is not a small change...

Let me start out with this disclaimer. I totally respect and in many ways admire this opinion.

The problem is...

Your opinion contains the following words more than once: "should be"/"supposed to be"/"expected to see"

This is a problem because it's a personal viewpoint used as a "This is what should be happening" persuasive argument. This is in total contradiction to Smallville's purpose. Smallville is a show that puts a modern spin on an American classic. I use the term spin here purposely to denote that it is not meant to re-hash the mythology. The producers have indicated time and time and time again that this show is an interpretation of the Superman mythology. This gives the show the right to create the story however it wants to. You don't have to like it, but to say that the show "should" do this or is "expected" to do that is unbelievably unrealistic and unfair.

Again, you have the right to not like it and express your dissatisfaction, but saying the show is bad because it "should" adhere to the mythos or is "expected" to have a non-tragic hero is ignoring the show's fundamental premise and is completely biased. This does not make the show "bad" by any means; it only makes its spin on the Superman mythology different than the original tales.

The fundamental problem here is that many fans already have a set opinion as to how Superman "developed"/"came about"/"began", etc. and have no open mind to interpret it otherwise. To understand Smallville, you have to have the open mind.

Summers

10-16-2005, 10:21 PM

That's why for many hardcore Superman fans have to tolerant SV is to think of it as an "Elseworlds" senerio.

If I have to have an open mind to accept that SV CK has no Superman morals and ethics, then this is no longer a Superman type of story. It's Clark's Creek with CGI. To understand Smallville all you need to watch is 90210 and Dawson's Creek.

ryb

10-16-2005, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Summers
That's why for many hardcore Superman fans have to tolerant SV is to think of it as an "Elseworlds" senerio.

If I have to have an open mind to accept that SV CK has no Superman morals and ethics, then this is no longer a Superman type of story. It's Clark's Creek with CGI. To understand Smallville all you need to watch is 90210 and Dawson's Creek.

Although I give you many props for the 90210/Creek zinger, the problem is you're proving my point entirely.

And I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say that SV's CK has *no* Superman morals and ethics. He certainly has a lot of them; he just doesn't have all of them (and some of the biggies). But, of course, that's part of the show's premise.

Plus, I really don't think of Smallville as a Superman-type of story anyway. I don't think the show has reached that point yet. And by the time it does reach that point, the show will be over.

Summers

10-16-2005, 10:53 PM

Gee, that was consending :(. Sorry, but you just proved the point that many people do not understand this icon thanks to this show's inaccuracies. I think the problem here is also the traditionlist vs. the Marvelized. There has always been disagreement, but the fact is the "marvelization" of Superman is long past. The comic world learned from that mistake, and is going back to the icon's ideal, ethics, and morals. SV is just too stupid to realize they should do the same.

Smallville is in the Superman franchaise. This is a journey supposely leading up to Superman. We saw the cape in "Hereafter". Clark made the "S" in S2. We heard of Krypton. It is already a Superman-type of story which gives the characters a certain ideal to uphold. That's the actual foundation of the show, and you can't shake that foundation which carries the ideals of icon.

When Clark did not give Lana the choices for "Mortal" or "Hidden" that the moment many hardcore Superman fans, and fans of this show(on non-related Superman boards) saw that this is no Clark Kent everyone knows. This is AlMiles' version. It's been five years enough is enough. SV CK lost his Superman morals and ethnics way back in S3, and hasn't been the same since. There is no hyperbolic about it. It's pure regression prior to S1, and rehashes of storylines SV already trend. Clark Kent is not Peter Parker. He does not get guilted to become Superman. He does not treat his powers as curse, but a gift. SV is doing the complete opposite of what the icon is about.

smallvillerocks45

10-16-2005, 11:15 PM

I don't think the show is making Clark's transition to Superman happen due to guilt. Right now, he is learning that his actions not only affect him but everyone closest to him, and yes he will feel guilty about the loss of whoever will consequently be exchanged, but it won't be that person who makes him decide to be Superman.

He has not yet "downloaded" all of the information that Jor-EL has for him, once he gets this info, he will understand his destiny and accept it. It will be enlightenment that ultimately influences his decision not guilt, IMO.

No, I am not a Superman comic book reader, but I've seen the movies - not like that's super education on the topic, but based on what I've seen, when Jonathan died, Clark wasn't guilted into becoming Superman, he just knew that it was his time to become who he was meant to be. I think Smallville (the show) will follow suit. Some changes probably will be made, from what I've read here, some already have been made, but Superman will always stand for Truth, Justice, and the American way, and Superman will be Superman because he wants to be.

Summers

10-16-2005, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by smallvillerocks45
I don't think the show is making Clark's transition to Superman happen due to guilt. Right now, he is learning that his actions not only affect him but everyone closest to him, and yes he will feel guilty about the loss of whoever will consequently be exchanged, but it won't be that person who makes him decide to be Superman.

Ironically, he had the death of someone or the near death of someone every season :rolleyes:. And he hasn't learned. What makes this death any different because it is foretold. His actions prior to the events of "Arrival" had the same similarity:

-S2 "Exodus" the death of his unborn sibling :(
-S3 "Hereafter" Jonathan's bad health throughout the season. Here it looks like he finally gets it, but no. He regresses and doesn't learn.
-S4 "Commencement" the death of Smallville. Does he get it? No, he doesn't obiviously.

He had death of someone choices for the past three years, and he hasn't gotten. This is just a rehash storyline which now is a foretelling is all. This one is no different IMO. It just emphasizes he has been running around in circles for the past three years lol.

ryb

10-16-2005, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by Summers
Gee, that was consending :(. Sorry, but you just proved the point that many people do not understand this icon thanks to this show's inaccuracies. I think the problem here is also the traditionlist vs. the Marvelized. There has always been disagreement, but the fact is the "marvelization" of Superman is long past. The comic world learned from that mistake, and is going back to the icon's ideal, ethics, and morals. SV is just too stupid to realize they should do the same.

Smallville is in the Superman franchaise. This is a journey supposely leading up to Superman. We saw the cape in "Hereafter". Clark made the "S" in S2. We heard of Krypton. It is already a Superman-type of story which gives the characters a certain ideal to uphold. That's the actual foundation of the show, and you can't shake that foundation which carries the ideals of icon.

When Clark did not give Lana the choices for "Mortal" or "Hidden" that the moment many hardcore Superman fans, and fans of this show(on non-related Superman boards) saw that this is no Clark Kent everyone knows. This is AlMiles' version. It's been five years enough is enough. SV CK lost his Superman morals and ethnics way back in S3, and hasn't been the same since. There is no hyperbolic about it. It's pure regression prior to S1, and rehashes of storylines SV already trend. Clark Kent is not Peter Parker. He does not get guilted to become Superman. He does not treat his powers as curse, but a gift. SV is doing the complete opposite of what the icon is about.

I apologize, I did not mean to sound condescending. I may disagree with you, but I don't think your opinion is "less" than mine in any way.

I have to say, though, that you are continuing to say things that prove the points I made in the original post. The problem here is that you have a set ideal of what Superman is, and Smallville does not agree with your ideals. This doesn't make Smallville "inaccurate" in its depiction at all because this is one of the fundamental bases of the series...it's a different, new interpretation of the classic. It doesn't make Smallville "bad" or "wrong"; it makes it different.

Why is "different" so "bad" or "inaccurate"? Because it doesn't share the qualities/ideals of the comics/movies? Well, it's not the comics or the movies. It's an individual thing. It was never meant to echo the comics or the movies. It is based on the comics, but it is not regurgitating the comics.

As far as Smallville's Clark Kent is concerned, this is Al's/Miles's version of the character. It's not yours or mine or anybody else's (save, of course, the other producers of the show). Why does it have to be yours or mine or anybody else's?

Yes, Smallville is in the Superman franchise, but Superman does not exist on this series yet. Thus, it is not a Superman story. It's a story that journeys toward the eventual existence of Superman, the journey toward the realization of the complete physical/mental/symbolic existence of the superheroic icon. It's more a "becoming Superman" story. A "Superman story" makes me interpret it as, well, Superman already exists.

Although I agree that Clark Kent is not Peter Parker, I'm really tiring of that argument. While the Clark Kent of Smallville certainly has qualities similar to the Peter Parker story, I'd say he has similarities to Bruce Wayne, too. And other similarities to other Clark Kents. The thing is...he's not completely any one of them. My question: What's the point? He *shouldn't* be like Peter Parker? He *should* be like the other Clark Kents? Why? Because that is how it *should* be? I really have a problem with that philosophy because it is a predetermined mindset. This is Smallville's Clark Kent, and the writers have the choice on who they want CK to be. Sure, you don't have to like it, but it doesn't mean that Smallville's CK *should* be something you prefer or I prefer and so on.

How has CK lost *all* of his morals? He still believes in saving people, he still takes none of the credit, he still would rather lose his own life than have someone else's taken away, and he still is a good, decent man. To me, that echoes many of the qualities Superman later has. Yes, your statement was hyperbolic.

I've stated this in no less than three previous posts. An absolute comparison to older Superman stories is not appropriate. Smallville was not made to echo the comics. It was made to put a new spin on them.

I think the problem is not necessarily the traditionalist vs. the marvelized because, well, I'm neither. The problem here is one of expectation vs. presentation. And while your expectations are certainly valid and reasonable, it is absolutely unreasonable to expect that everything will be presented as you think it should be. Not saying that you do, but I'm getting the impression that the traditionalists' viewpoints (and even the marvelists') are so closed-minded that a differing portrayal is not only blasphemous but false when neither adjective is appropriate, valid, or even fair.

ImzadiJedi

10-16-2005, 11:52 PM

It is good to see that others have troubles with the Clark Kent of Smallville too.

I liked Hidden. But what you all are saying about the SV Clark Kent being different from the Superman that we all know and love is so true. The 'morals and ethics' and Superman icon are just missing or poorly represented in Smallville.
It is good to hear others with the same concerns. Thanks! :)

LexLuthorMetropolis

10-17-2005, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by ImzadiJedi
It is good to see that others have troubles with the Clark Kent of Smallville too.

I liked Hidden. But what you all are saying about the SV Clark Kent being different from the Superman that we all know and love is so true. The 'morals and ethics' and Superman icon are just missing or poorly represented in Smallville.
It is good to hear others with the same concerns. Thanks! :)

Have to agree as well.

The idea of doing something based off of a comic book or a show for that matter is take in character's ideas and morals and use that as the background for the development of the character.

I've stated this too many times to count, but Clark Kent wouldn't just jump into bed with a girl just because he thinks he loves her in any incarnation. Instead AlMiles have slanted that angle and just used it to their advantage.

I'm an admitted traditionalist but when you set about the goal of making something based off a comic property there has to be a certain amount of respect for the property while be true to the nature of the story. They can't change everything they feel like and I truly don't think Clark is any closer to becoming Superman.

Action-wise he is still bull headed and doesn't even think about his actions until well after everything has happened. He's selfish and dealing with things his own way.

Given I understand this is AlMiles take, but there are moments where Clark is just not growing or moving forward. Yes, there are heroic elements within him but I don't think he truly grasps the responsibility of it all. He just does and that's not Superman and once again, true this isn't Superman yet.

To cover the non-traditionalist angle of me, I've been watching since episode one and thus far AlMiles have fallen backwards on the character of Clark Kent. We've seen him fight against his heritage then suddenly join the likes of Jor-El without any recourse. Instead of moving forward with the character we've fallen back. Clark, in fact, is similar to where he was in season one in many cases except with knowledge of his abilities.

He's accidentally killed more FotWs and lied to his parents on more than one occasion and finds himself taking advantage of Lana just because he is human. Not exactly my idea of a hero or someone who is destined to move towards a hero. In fact, he should had a stern lecture from the Kent's afte having sex with Lana. The "I'm 18 excuse" just stands against him as he is.

Though he has saved people on numerous occasions.

President_Luthor

10-17-2005, 07:51 AM

Clark will one day bear the S-shield on his costume, and wearing S-shield comes with obligations.

If TPTB didn't want any connection to the comics legend, they could have made a superhero show that had nothing to do with Superman -- but how successful could that have been without alluding to someone as iconic as Superman.

Clark's not Superman -- yet. But he will be. That is his destiny. They've made so many allusions to both the movies and what we've known about Superman in the comics. No one's saying that they want a cookie-cutter, ripped-from-the-comics version of Clark Kent on-screen.

We get that it's a WB version of Clark Kent. But if he's bearing 'that' name and alluding to 'that' legend, it's only fair that many fans would like to see a glimpse of that hero-to-be. What might have seemed acceptable during his early years in high school -- the doubt, the indecision -- isn't, when he's technically an adult and on the cusp of his destiny.

Clark's offer to give up his resurrection to spare more sacrifices was one of the few moments when he did seem like a selfless hero-to-be. Sadly, his loft chat with Chloe gave me the impression that he learned little from his brush with death. He'll propagate his lies with Lana, with Lex so that he won't have to sacrifice his love for Lana. And that's knowing that someone he loves will be exchanged for getting his own life back.

Would he not want to 'set things right' with the people he's loved (family, Lana, Chloe, etc.), those he's wronged (Pete?) before that person is taken from him?

It is Clark's journey to his destiny, but after four years, it's not an unreasonable expectation for fans to want to see him - well - live up to some of those obligations of a superhero. Lex, in contrast, is well on his way to claiming his role as Superman's ultimate foil.

Even if Clark doesn't get into a Superman costume by series' end, I would want to say at that time: yes, this man will become the Man of Steel of legend.

A 'Boy Scout' Clark probably would make for boring television because he'd have no dramatic tension since he would already know what's right and would make no / few mistakes. But SV has created a Clark so imperfect, so human that it's almost beyond belief that he'd get his act together in time to challenge Lex. He can't even tell the truth without his hand being forced: remember, neither Chloe nor Pete learned about it by Clark 'seeking' them out of his own free will ... something had to happen which left Clark with little choice but to admit everything to them.

Unlike Batman, Superman should not be defined by tragedy, or be motivated by it. It should be hope which drives him. Clark's learning process / hero-in-training seems to be taking way too long, and he's made so many errors in judgment (to put it mildly) that it will seem like he was forced into his destiny, instead of courageously claiming it as a duty, as a principle.

As of "Hidden", I still can't truly say that about him. I hope to see some glimmer, any glimmer that he will claim his destiny selflessly, not be forced into it because of less-than-admirable motives (revenge, despair, etc.).

Reign

10-17-2005, 08:19 AM

Finally, some like-minded individuals who feel the way I do!

As far as those people saying this version of Clark is not yet Superman... it seems like WB is borrowing the Superman mantra simply to create a new spin on the teenage angst and drama that we normally see on WB shows.

Yes, I stated how I feel things "should be/ought to be/supposed to be." Thank you for recognizing that I am entitled to my own opinion. However, my basis for this is because I also believe that Superman represents a certain moral integrity that is above the Average American. To say that he grows into his role as Superman is one thing, but to trivialize his development with lies, deceipt, and unabashed selfishness is holding true to the character.

There is room for some artistic license to remake the character. Byrne obviously did it in the 80s and received some criticism, although he mostly held true to the Superman ideal and we now praise him for redefining this era of Superman. Who lived or died was not as relevant to the myth. Other details, origins of characters did not matter. But the ideal was still there. The problem with Smallville is that it is moving further and further away from the ideal.

So the ideal isn't reached yet? The ends does not justify the means... and the means is disappointing. I'm not saying the show is bad. I'm saying the show has some disappointing aspects. That's my opinion. I think the ideal can be reached more creatively while staying true to the character.

Remember the scene in the movie where Clark gets bet up in the bar when he doesn't have his powers... then as Superman he goes back to exact revenge and he enjoyed it? That was good! It showed human qualities, but did not ruin the character. There's a line that can be crossed, Smallville has crossed it.

Perhaps I only speak for myself when I feel like there are qualities about Superman that aren't learned and aren't programmed into him. Don't be blinded to the ideal due to your love for the show. It's one thing to be open-minded, it's another thing to turn a blind eye.

I said before that I thought we were going to see how the super acquired the man... not how a man becomes super. What does that mean? Clark is not human, he's never been. He's had to deal with his powers since an early age and he's had to learn to be normal. So it is my opinion, yes, that I think Clark Kent learns to be normal... he doesn't learn to be super.

drwood

10-17-2005, 08:42 AM

I wasn't disappointed with Clark until the attitude he showed in "Mortal" and "Hidden". Jor-El has been a good father...Clark lost his powers in "Arrival b/c he chose to bring Lana to the hospital rather than superspeeding back to the FOS.

That being said, he is a teenager, and deserves to be cut some slack, IMO.

hbkid21

10-17-2005, 11:44 AM

I have to agree that Clark Kent based off morals would not make good tv. Smallville would have not survive pass the first season. But I like this show because it wouldn't make sense this guy comes to earth, adapt to human life and have no flaws. Who says Clark will become SuperMan off of tradegy? The show might throw a swerve.

Clark is subborn, just like his father who he grown up around right? Clark parents have been telling him to lie about his identity for so long, that he becomes a liar right? Clark is just like any normal 18 year old. That makes the show seem more realistic to me(besides all the other things aside..lol) I don't think it really fair to want a modern day Clark to be traditonal.

The fact is, on Smallville, Clark is human and I'm glad the show took a different direction. Simply because this day and this generation, that kind of Clark Kent would not make sense.

All about Clark

10-17-2005, 01:23 PM

I liked your post hbkid 21. This show needs to show how Clark learned from his human family, which is flawed. That's the point that is being made, how do you go from being flawed to Superman. That is what this is to me and I like it. If he wasn't flawed through going thru school, he'd be considered the biggest freak on earth. Jor-el has to make extreme situations to get Clark to see how influential he is and to get Clark to get to where he needs to go.

I still say that people's expectations are the problem, let go of it, which is exactly what Clark needs to do, LET GO OF IT.

Liriel

10-17-2005, 02:07 PM

Sorry, but if they wanted viewers to come in without expectations, they shouldn't have used a previously-existing superhero, much less a famous one.

MBCorp

10-17-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Summers
Ironically, he had the death of someone or the near death of someone every season :rolleyes:. And he hasn't learned. What makes this death any different because it is foretold. His actions prior to the events of "Arrival" had the same similarity:

-S2 "Exodus" the death of his unborn sibling :(
-S3 "Hereafter" Jonathan's bad health throughout the season. Here it looks like he finally gets it, but no. He regresses and doesn't learn.
-S4 "Commencement" the death of Smallville. Does he get it? No, he doesn't obiviously.

I hadn't even noticed before how much death, horror, and bloodshed has been unleashed on this show in order to get Clark to embrace his destiny. Blech. I think the world is better off without this "superman". Why should so many people be killed and sacrificed in order to make Clark a hero? I think the earth would be better off without that sort of hero.

Superman is supposed to be a beacon of goodness and hope, but SV just doesn't get it. My god, they couldn't even have his spaceship land harmlessly on this show like in the comics, instead it has to come in a destructive meteor shower that leaves behind meteor rocks that warp and mutate people. That of course wasn't Clark's fault, but it makes me wonder why so much death and bloodshed must be tied up with this version of Superman. And then Clark can't just naturally become a hero because he enjoys helping people, oh no, we've got to have death after death in order to guilt him into becoming a hero. And we've got this immature, whiney "hero" who doesn't seem to have any hero ethic or ambition whatsoever.

In the last three episodes alone we've seen that all he cares about is being with Lana, and yet he doesn't even trust or respect her enough to tell her the truth about him even though her life is now in danger because of him. We've seen him selfishly only caring about his own desires of being normal and not caring about how his powers could be of benefit to mankind. We've seen him beat someone up, punching them even when they were on the ground (even if Lex did deserve a beating that's still not a Superman thing to do), etc. Clark isn't just a lousy Superman, he's a lousy hero period.

And now somebody else has to die for Clark? And it's probably going to be Jonathan, Martha, or Chloe? None of those characters should have to die for Clark since they all exhibit more morals and better heroic qualities than Clark ever has. I'm sorry, but this version of Clark Kent just isn't worth any of them dying for him. And if he can't be a hero on his own then he's not much of a hero to begin with.

cmgames

10-17-2005, 02:37 PM

Clark is just an alien who's Dad thinks he's something special. I mean who does he think he is playing God and taking some undeserving person's life to bring Clark back.

Anyway, why is Clark really so afraid to tell Lana his secret? Is he scared she'll report him and he'll get deported for being an Illegal Alien? Clark of SV is useless, he couldn't even cut it as a human being for more than 5 seconds. Well long enough for him to get his rocks off with Lana, no wonder he was so happy to die, he finally fulfilled his life's dream.

Forget that he just saved the whole of SV with that missile, focus on one person you love is going to die. Yea thats right, you should be downhearted saving lives is only a 9/5.

margroks

10-17-2005, 03:09 PM

Yes. If this was Wonderman before he became a hero, I'd say, Meh, Tom Welling is cute, Allison Mack is great and this guy's totally screwed up.

But it isn't. It's Clark Kent and we have a right to expect certain things from him and to expect there are some things he will not do.

Being so willing to give up his abilities for a girl who hates what he is goes way beyond ridiculous. And Clark could have gotten Lana to the hospital and sped back to Jor-El but no, he had to stay, knowing there would be terrible consequences. Lana is all important. In fact, Lana is made the centerpiece of this whole show. We are now given a CLark who is thinks she is so wonderful, is so obsessed with her for reasons we've never been shown that he'll, sacrifice anything, including his abilities which he can use for the greater good so that he can not only date her but have sex with her.

Screwing Lana is so important that he not only lies to her by omission about who he is, knowing she'd hate him but whines when he gets his powers back and is able to save Kansas from nuclear holocaust because...that means he can no longer screw Lana. That's the most outrageous depiction of Clark Kent I've ever seen and we deserve better.

This is way beyond a guy who's imature. This is not a guy who can become Superman because he can do things others can't and because it's his destiny. THis is a guy who won't be a hero as long as he can get in Lana Lang's pants. If he becomes a hero it's because, he can't screw Lana anymore, or Lana lets him go or Lana causes a huge rift between him and Lex and that's as lame as it gets for getting an arch enemy.

It's makes Lana the all important reason Clark ultimately does what he does and that's not right. He's been made a pathetic excuse for a hero and Al Gough and Miles Millar should be ashamed of what they've done to his character. And I thought they couldn't make him look worse than they did with the Alicia debacle last year. Boy, was I mistaken.

All about Clark

10-17-2005, 03:51 PM

Harsh much. I guess some people can't see things from any POV but their own.

Just seems like more Lana bashing as well.

Timester

10-17-2005, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
Harsh much. I guess some people can't see things from any POV but their own.

Which POV? The fact that we are talking about SUPERMAN? ;)

Originally posted by All about Clark
Just seems like more Lana bashing as well.

What that has anything to do with the thread? :confused:

All about Clark

10-17-2005, 04:06 PM

Clarks point of view. And I'm sure you would do so much better being a one-of-kind freaky alien with a powerful father you don't understand his motives and are scared to death of the idea of conquering. And the blaming Lana, get real, he loves her, you don't need to understand it, it just is. She's not trying to hurt anyone, just to live her life. And I'm sure that every person on this site has made perfect choices in life where all their family approves of their every decision. NOT!!!

Timester

10-17-2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
Clarks point of view. And I'm sure you would do so much better being a one-of-kind freaky alien with a powerful father you don't understand his motives and are scared to death of the idea of conquering. And the blaming Lana, get real, he loves her, you don't need to understand it, it just is. She's not trying to hurt anyone, just to live her life. And I'm sure that every person on this site has made perfect choices in life where all their family approves of their every decision. NOT!!!

Who blamed Lana? :confused:

As much bas**** Jor-El is, he is right. Clark is a whinning moping teenager, not prepared for his destiny (we are already on season 5). That's not Clark Kent. Even Chloe sees it. It's unbelievable how the writers write Clark this way and at the same time regconizes that Clark is supposed to be way more that he his. He is the most powerfull being alive, with the possibility of changing the world for good or bad and all he can do is whinning about not telling his secret (being a coward)? No way he is going to be the SUPERMAN like this.

MBCorp

10-17-2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
Clarks point of view. And I'm sure you would do so much better being a one-of-kind freaky alien with a powerful father you don't understand his motives and are scared to death of the idea of conquering. And the blaming Lana, get real, he loves her, you don't need to understand it, it just is. She's not trying to hurt anyone, just to live her life. And I'm sure that every person on this site has made perfect choices in life where all their family approves of their every decision. NOT!!!

For one thing, the majority of the posters weren't blaming Lana. We were criticizing Clark's actions as a character who is meant to be an American icon. Lana had nothing to do with it. Anyway, Clark is the one who is showing disrespect to Lana by not revealing the truth to her.

And your argument that we couldn't do any better in Clark's place doesn't stick since Clark is supposed to be better than the average person. Supposedly he is meant to become the greatest superhero of all time. He isn't just a normal, everyday person. The future Superman should be a stronger, more moral and good person than regular people.

All about Clark

10-17-2005, 04:42 PM

But to this point, the only thing he's been taught is don't let anyone know about you, act as human and as ordinary as possible, which is much easier to do if you can be human. Is it any wonder why he wants that? He's got to learn from his biological father that he is much more than that, but Clark doesn't trust him, so why would be follow him. Jor-el is trying to bend Clark to his will because he knows what's best for him, but Clark still thinks his decisions are better for humans because of the message in the ship. I still think Clark can be the Superman you all want, but not without his Kryptonian education. Jor-el just has to get him to accept it.

And for the Lana thing, he loves her, what individual on this planet would not try to make themselves happy and he thinks Lana makes him happy.

ryb

10-17-2005, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by Reign
As far as those people saying this version of Clark is not yet Superman... it seems like WB is borrowing the Superman mantra simply to create a new spin on the teenage angst and drama that we normally see on WB shows.

Yes, I stated how I feel things "should be/ought to be/supposed to be." Thank you for recognizing that I am entitled to my own opinion. However, my basis for this is because I also believe that Superman represents a certain moral integrity that is above the Average American. To say that he grows into his role as Superman is one thing, but to trivialize his development with lies, deceipt, and unabashed selfishness is holding true to the character.

There is room for some artistic license to remake the character. Byrne obviously did it in the 80s and received some criticism, although he mostly held true to the Superman ideal and we now praise him for redefining this era of Superman. Who lived or died was not as relevant to the myth. Other details, origins of characters did not matter. But the ideal was still there. The problem with Smallville is that it is moving further and further away from the ideal.

So the ideal isn't reached yet? The ends does not justify the means... and the means is disappointing. I'm not saying the show is bad. I'm saying the show has some disappointing aspects. That's my opinion. I think the ideal can be reached more creatively while staying true to the character.

Remember the scene in the movie where Clark gets bet up in the bar when he doesn't have his powers... then as Superman he goes back to exact revenge and he enjoyed it? That was good! It showed human qualities, but did not ruin the character. There's a line that can be crossed, Smallville has crossed it.

Perhaps I only speak for myself when I feel like there are qualities about Superman that aren't learned and aren't programmed into him. Don't be blinded to the ideal due to your love for the show. It's one thing to be open-minded, it's another thing to turn a blind eye.

I said before that I thought we were going to see how the super acquired the man... not how a man becomes super. What does that mean? Clark is not human, he's never been. He's had to deal with his powers since an early age and he's had to learn to be normal. So it is my opinion, yes, that I think Clark Kent learns to be normal... he doesn't learn to be super.

My previous posts are not necessarily to disagree with many of the opinions expressed here; instead, they disagree with your reasonings behind them. Although many of you are still using "expect", "should", or "ought" in your reasonings, I'm starting to see more objective, reasoned criticism.

I think Reign's post here is a good example of generally qualitative, intelligent criticism. Let me respond paragraph by paragraph.

For paragraph 1: There is definitely this aspect to the show. No arguments here.

Paragraph 2: I'm assuming you meant "not" holding true to the character? I don't think Smallville is trivializing these qualities, but rather emphasizing them. Let's look at it another way. How many people does Clark Kent tell about his true identity *after* Superman is shown to the world? Many of the lies that you are referring to here are more appropriately described as "omissions". While there are definite in-your-face lies, I'm not sure this wouldn't be the case after Superman is known to the world either. I'm just not sure the movies/comics emphasized this aspect of Clark Kent's life as much as Smallville is doing. One thing I like about Smallville is that it makes the hero's burden quite apparent. His gifts come at great price, and one of his "prizes" is isolation. Certainly an aspect of Clark Kent that the movies/comics have also expressed, but I think Smallville is emphasizing this fact because we often forget the personal nature of the global Superman.

Paragraph 3: I understand your likeness to the Superman ideal, and hey, I have it too. It's just that we haven't reached the point of idealness yet. Smallville has a lot of time left to bridge the gap. Although it's been over 4 years now, the series is not over. Give it some time to bridge this gap. If this is not done or is not done convincingly, then I will not only better appreciate this criticism...I will also agree with it.

Paragraph 4: I'm having a little trouble interpreting this paragraph, but it sounds as if you cannot see a way for the ideal to be reached when Smallville is at the point we are at now. Is this a correct interpretation?

Assuming this interpretation is correct, let me add in some thoughts. A lot of people have said that hope is a primary mechanism behind Superman's motives. I agree totally. And honestly, I think Smallville can pull that one. I think the Clark Kent in this series has that aspect.

A lot of people have said that tragedy is not a primary mechanism behind Superman's motives. Disagree. I think tragedy is a mechanism behind most people's motives, whether these tragedies are as "big" as death or as "small" as a minor disappointment. Tragedy drives people in multiple ways (whether it be vengeance, depression, newfound hope, a renewed supply of energy, etc.). The fact that tragedy "cannot" be a part of Superman's upbringing is too simplistic and unrealistic.

A lot of people have said that Clark Kent is not forced to be Superman. Agree to a large extent. But, I guarantee you that the final choice will be his on this show because he does have the freedom of choice in any situation. I'm guessing this is not where the argument lies. My guess is that a lot of people expect Superman to *completely personally* come to that decision. Well, I'm afraid that's just as simplistic as the "lack of tragedy" mechanism that many expect. The decision to become Superman should not be completely voluntary. There MUST be reasons for him to choose to be Superman. Reasons for action are often caused by a series of preceding events. And these events often lead to a particular mindset that determines a position and a decision. So, although the decision is not completely forced, it is not completely voluntary either.

Paragraph 5: So vengeance is an ok Superman quality, but lying/deception/selfishness is not? Not a good argument, especially since vengeance is selfish and often deceptive.

I think your meaning may have been more along the lines of we see "less" of the flaws in other Superman versions. That may certainly be true, but we have also had more time to understand the human nature of Clark Kent in Smallville than in the movies. Maybe not the comics, but most certainly the movies.

Does this make Smallville's Clark Kent less idealistic? I honestly don't think so. I think Smallville's Clark Kent is more human, though.

Paragraph 6: Well, ok. So you think some of Superman's qualities aren't learned or programmed into him. Such as what, exactly? His sense of justice and decency? Those aren't innate in human nature, at least. His sense of selflessness versus selfishness? Selfishness is innate (survival instinct), but selflessness is not (goes against the instinct). His process of decision-making? While certainly a personal characteristic, this is often a social as much as a biological issue.

The assumption that these traits are innate versus learned is nice, but it isn't realistic. Smallville is going for the realism here versus the idealism.

Let me also clarify my stance on Smallville. I like the show a great deal, but I have many issues with it as well. In fact, I agree with many of the opinions you and others have expressed in this thread. What I fundamentally disagree with is your reasonings behind the opinions. Personal expectations/desires are certainly valid, but they are not constructive forms of criticism. Constructive criticism involves an objective analysis of the show's qualities and characteristics. In your post, you present many examples of this...but in many others' posts and in some of your previous posts, you present several examples of personal/destructive criticism.

Let me give an example of what I think the difference is between the two forms...

The show should use the character of Lois Lane in more fulfilling/more useful/more intelligent ways. I do not like the general "proppish" nature her character at times is portrayed as.

vs.

Lois Lane is often underused and is sometimes misused in many episodes. Many of her scenes feel forced, contrived, or even unnecessary. Perhaps a better way to use her character is to give her a storyline with gravitas and intelligence, something her character is so well known for.

The first example is personal/destructive while the second example is constructive. The use of the word "should" makes all the difference. Even though you believe that a show "should" do this or do that, criticizing the show for not doing it is unfair while suggesting that this may be a way for the show to improve is another thing entirely. This is the "open-mindedness" I keep referring to in my posts.

As for the final paragraph: Although I now understand your meaning, I vehemently disagree with it. I think the use of the word "man" in Superman is interesting because it implies that Clark Kent is indeed human. Well, he's not, but he certainly has many aspects of humanity. And Smallville has focused on this, certainly. But Smallville has not ignored by any means the "alien" qualities of Clark Kent. He definitely has superpowers and uses them for good things.

Wouldn't it be interesting that now the show has presented a more human Clark Kent, it now begins to focus on the alien? Wouldn't it be interesting if we now understand how the more human Clark Kent begins to expand beyond his "normal" horizons and takes on the super qualities? And wouldn't it be interesting if the humanity he has learned from and made mistakes from makes him soon desire the alien/super qualities that will make him the ideal you think of when you see the suit with the big S on it? I think it would be.

Maybe part of the reasoning behind the focus more on the human aspects/desires of Clark Kent is to understand the real pressure behind his decision to embark on something else. Or maybe the humanity will give him reasons to use his superiority in better/greater ways. I don't know, but I'm willing to watch to find out.

cmgames

10-17-2005, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by ryb

Let me also clarify my stance on Smallville. I like the show a great deal, but I have many issues with it as well. In fact, I agree with many of the opinions you and others have expressed in this thread. What I fundamentally disagree with is your reasonings behind the opinions. Personal expectations/desires are certainly valid, but they are not constructive forms of criticism. Constructive criticism involves an objective analysis of the show's qualities and characteristics. In your post, you present many examples of this...but in many others' posts and in some of your previous posts, you present several examples of personal/destructive criticism.

Let me give an example of what I think the difference is between the two forms...

The show should use the character of Lois Lane in more fulfilling/more useful/more intelligent ways. I do not like the general "proppish" nature her character at times is portrayed as.

vs.

Lois Lane is often underused and is sometimes misused in many episodes. Many of her scenes feel forced, contrived, or even unnecessary. Perhaps a better way to use her character is to give her a storyline with gravitas and intelligence, something her character is so well known for.

The first example is personal/destructive while the second example is constructive. The use of the word "should" makes all the difference. Even though you believe that a show "should" do this or do that, criticizing the show for not doing it is unfair while suggesting that this may be a way for the show to improve is another thing entirely. This is the "open-mindedness" I keep referring to in my posts.

Just curioud to know why it matter what form of criticism we use. This is a message board for fans to talk about and praise/criticise what we personally like/dislike. We aren't submitting our reviews to TPTB or the school teacher so why does it need to be constructive? You said both forms were valid.

Mydhrin

10-17-2005, 05:32 PM

I have to agree that both of critiscm is allowed and is ok, for a great discussion to happen and a debate to evolve if one critics isnt made objectivly then its kind of impossible to discuss or try to prove a point wrong or right. Why? Because its like going against the beliefs or the opinions of the persons itself. You cant do that! First off, it wont give a thing, because its like trying to punch a brick wall and second, who are we to change that drasticly and directly the peoples beliefs.

By trying to keep the discussions in an objective way, we try and keep our opinions out of the debate and thus can compare on the same basis. This is why objective critiscm is more adequate for discussions, although opinions vs opinions does give more fire in discussions ;)

DARKRAGE

10-17-2005, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Reign
it seems like he's being forced to become superman... that does rest easy with me at all

I noticed that let the boy emrace his destiny gradually

Reign

10-17-2005, 10:01 PM

ryb, you spent a considerable amount of time crafting that response, so i think that it warrants a well crafted rebuttal in return. unfortunately, i had written many of my responses while at work, so i did not spend the thought to choose my words more carefully. i just returned from class, so i'm pretty tired... however, we can continue this discussion another time.

briefly, however... in response to your comment regarding soliciting objective and constructive arguments from us... i will have to agree with the person who responded by stating that this is a discussion board that is free and open to opinions, whether constructive or destructive. the reality of the board is that people are free to express their opinions. although, it seems almost as if it is a game of semantics. when some of us phrase that we "think" or say things "ought," we are reflecting some of the observations that we have seen in Superman history. They are not mere opinions, but rather a manifestation and commitment to what we have observed is consistent with the character.

in discussion, one does not dismiss destructive or subjective arguments either. in fact, our own legal system has its roots in both subjective and objective thought. so long as arguments are not circular or are plagued with some other fallacy, many are quite relevant on both sides... constructivism is just an added bonus and more of an etiquette

in sum, my position is simple. if i need to state it using different terms, i will. i can expand later. superman represents a pure and iconic figure. i'm not religious, but some liken him to Jesus... the son of an unearthly father, he is sent to earth to walk among men to save the human race... so perhaps as difficult it is for some Catholics and Christians to believe that Jesus may have had human flaws and vices, it is difficult for some of the people who are loyal to the Superman ideal to accept that his origins were less than.

Insert my own opinion: I believe the retelling or remake of Superman's origin should keep the ideal intact throughout. This may be unrealistic, both in terms of believability and in terms of tv ratings. i won't comment on the latter. regarding believability, i think it can be done... in a sort of arthurian legend sort of way...

anyway, my girlfriend called me 15 minutes ago and i told her i was busy typing this response... objectively speaking in certain unambiguous subjective terms, i suppose that i have other things that i ought to do

hbkid21

10-18-2005, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by MBCorp
I hadn't even noticed before how much death, horror, and bloodshed has been unleashed on this show in order to get Clark to embrace his destiny. Blech. I think the world is better off without this "superman". Why should so many people be killed and sacrificed in order to make Clark a hero? I think the earth would be better off without that sort of hero.

Superman is supposed to be a beacon of goodness and hope, but SV just doesn't get it. My god, they couldn't even have his spaceship land harmlessly on this show like in the comics, instead it has to come in a destructive meteor shower that leaves behind meteor rocks that warp and mutate people. That of course wasn't Clark's fault, but it makes me wonder why so much death and bloodshed must be tied up with this version of Superman. And then Clark can't just naturally become a hero because he enjoys helping people, oh no, we've got to have death after death in order to guilt him into becoming a hero. And we've got this immature, whiney "hero" who doesn't seem to have any hero ethic or ambition whatsoever.

In the last three episodes alone we've seen that all he cares about is being with Lana, and yet he doesn't even trust or respect her enough to tell her the truth about him even though her life is now in danger because of him. We've seen him selfishly only caring about his own desires of being normal and not caring about how his powers could be of benefit to mankind. We've seen him beat someone up, punching them even when they were on the ground (even if Lex did deserve a beating that's still not a Superman thing to do), etc. Clark isn't just a lousy Superman, he's a lousy hero period.

And now somebody else has to die for Clark? And it's probably going to be Jonathan, Martha, or Chloe? None of those characters should have to die for Clark since they all exhibit more morals and better heroic qualities than Clark ever has. I'm sorry, but this version of Clark Kent just isn't worth any of them dying for him. And if he can't be a hero on his own then he's not much of a hero to begin with.

To be honest, i was never a Superman fan until I actually watched this show. Growing up, I wasn't a Batman fan. For some odd reason I liked Robin and Batgirl. Don't ask why. The reason I was never a Superman fan, it felt to fake to me. Of course, it not real. But they present Superman with no flaws at all. It was like his own human quality was the fact he was in love with Lois Lane. I never really read the comics liked that, but why does Clark fall in love with Lois anyway? Because of her looks? Was never explained but I probably wrong and it may have been explained.

Smallville explores everything. They show Clark Kent is human. That like other people, he makes mistakes. People are mad because Smallville doesn't stick to the traditional Clark Kent, but that Clark Kent would not be on tv today if he was put on our tv screen today.

Clark grew up on earth, but yet he not human? Yes, he is an alien. But if your step-father raise you and your father was never around, wouldn't you consider your step father your real dad? If you were from New York but you grew up in Cali, wouldn't you say you from Cali? So Clark growing up on earth, he really human in the mind aspect.

Clark wants to be normal. Simple as that. I don't know if that was in the comics or not, but of course he wants to be human and it wouldn't be fair to think he doesn't. With that said, any human would want to be with the woman he loves. The guy couldn't even play basketball because of his power. He grew up with normal kids, so he would have the desire to be normal and I think it dumb that the comics never point that out(if it didnt). If he was that traditional Clark, then wow, he really would be blah.

The bloodshed on Smallville mainly comes from the person accidently killing theirselves, someone else killing them, etc. I never recall Clark actually killing anyone. Batman, Spiderman had something tragic happen in their lives. Does that not make them heros regardless? I think it was smart to leave behind metor rocks. The show wouldn't last long without it. The show shows Clark gaining his powers and how to use them on the show like an teen. Much like everyone been through or going through(not in the same matter of course).

We have no idea who going to die. Last year a major character was suppose to die at the end of the season and it only ended up being Jason(who was consider a major character, but not in my eyes). We don't know how they coming out with this so it best to wait until the season is done.

On this board, I get the feeling that Smallville Clark can do no right. Clark been saving people since the show started and that was not any cause of guilt or anything and it will contiue that way. Heck, in the movie, it seem Clark became Superman out of guilt because his father die and at the funeral he says, "I could of done something" or something like that.

margroks

10-18-2005, 09:24 AM

No, in the movie he said, "I have all these powers and I couldn't save him." He wanted to use his powers and his father held him back because, "I know you were meant for more than playing football." Paraphrased and used in various other paraphrasals on Smallville. THat Clark never whined about accepting his destiny.

THis Clark whines and broods way too much. He reminds people of a superrich rockstar who whines about having to work too hard or not being a normal guy anymore. You have something most people would die to have but you're not gratefull for it. That's it...Clark has all these special gifts and he's not grateful for them and what he can do with them; all he wants is to date and Lana Lang and leap into her bed instead of the tall buildings he was meant to. ANd for a girl whom he knows would hate him? Does anyone wonder why he's called the Big Dumb alien? All this whining for a girl who's not worth such adoration in any way? Ridiculous. Of course people hate this stuff; this isn't the Clark we were told we'd see grow and accept his true nature. The guy just goes backward now.

HalJordan4184

10-18-2005, 10:20 AM

I love this, Clark wants to be human, he's wanted in the comics and all that attitude. Clark has never wanted to be human. He's only wanted what he sees as a normal life. A family, a home, a steady job, and friends he can count on. He does not however want to be human. He accepts his differences, and lives with them. He doesn't whine nor complain about them. He sees them as gifts to be used the world over, not as a burden that precludes his enjoyment of life.

hbkid21

10-18-2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
I love this, Clark wants to be human, he's wanted in the comics and all that attitude. Clark has never wanted to be human. He's only wanted what he sees as a normal life. A family, a home, a steady job, and friends he can count on. He does not however want to be human. He accepts his differences, and lives with them. He doesn't whine nor complain about them. He sees them as gifts to be used the world over, not as a burden that precludes his enjoyment of life.

That what makes Smallville Clark different and more real to me. I know overall it not real, but for Clark to live on earth majority of his life and not want to be like his friends or anything is too unrealistic to me. Big reason why reality tv shows are popular is because it real(well some are anyway).

Reign

10-19-2005, 12:26 AM

It's fine to want to be human and live a normal life... but Hidden took it too far...

Put it this way... if I was in Clark's position, I would accept my destiny in Arrival... seeing what sort of dangers I might have to protect Earth from in the future... I sure as hell would not be complaining or regretting my destiny, because I would determine to make it a good one... and I would tell Lana the truth

angelfire east

10-19-2005, 12:28 AM

Great posts President_Luthor, Summers, MBCorp, Timester & HalJordan4184 sorry if i forgot someone. I agree with everything your saying.

Clark was more Superman in season one then he is now! He had almost everything that made me think Superman! I never got the feeling I have for him now. Now's he's not even what I'd call a great normal(non-superhero) person, he's selfish, hurts others (lana) becuase he's a coward, it takes death to to make him be a hero. He's not a hero in my eyes right now; he's a whiny, selfish jerk!

He loses his powers and that's it for helping people, guess his proisme to Ryan doesn't mean anything; You know the proimse about never giving up. I thought Superman and/or Clark Kent didn't have to have superpowers to want to help others, he did it because he cared, because that's who he is. SV's Clark is to obsessed with "being normal" and his girlfirend [not Lana's fault she can't contral how another person feels] then helping others.

I've never though anyone had a right to know Clark's secret intill Clark started sleeping with Lana. She has the right to know, and to make the choice about whether she sleeps with a alien or not! And she should be told if Clark wants to contiue having a relaionship with her or at the very least told there is a part of Clark's life that wouldn't add up and he can't tell her about and let her decide if she still wants to be in a relationship with him.

He was going to tell her at the end of season 3 but didn't because he didn't want to hold her back for going to Paris. Nothing has happened to make Clark think Lana could handle knowing any less then she could have at the end of season 3. In fact more has happened to make Lana open and ready to know like Isbel and all the other crazy stuff that happened in season 4. She not the same 16 year old who said meeting a alien would 'freak her out' because she's seen things that have changed her. She not going on about evil aliens or how much aliens freak her out is she? No, she not from what I can tell.

xrayvision

10-19-2005, 02:20 AM

I'm also a person who has been very disappointed by Clark's lack of morals. This is mainly because it seems like in earlier seasons he had more of them than he does now. There have been some who said that in season 1-2 he really seemed like a guy who will one day become Superman. I totally agree with this.

The show did a great job of showing him as a superbeing with many human qualities, but one who never stopped at doing the right thing. He sacrificed his wanting to be with Lana on several occasions (like that date where he ran off to stop Sean Kelvin, the ice dude). At that point, he wasn't seen lying too much, and whatever lying he did was to protect his identity and those he loves from those that he knew were out to harm them. In Rogue, he messed up and was caught using his powers, but although his parents were disappointed this happened, they taught him that saving lives is more important and to always see the best in people. In Rush, he had another date with Lana, and he had a chance to explain what happened to maybe redeem himself in her eyes (he could have said he was drugged, which he basically was), but he instead knew that the lives of Chloe and Pete were in jeopardy. In S1, he lost his powers in Leech, and quickly learned that they were his responsibility and too much of who he was. He saw the consequences of power like that in the wrong hands and knew he had to stop it.

The problem we have now is that all that was learned back then seems to have been forgotten. He knew that losing his powers back then caused trouble. The thing is in S5, he didn't know he would lose his powers, but he should have learned that Jor-El was right in everything he said. And every time Jor-El was right, there was always a big impact on Clark, so it seems very unbelievable that he still doesn't take Jor-El seriously. When Jor-El told him the consequences would be grave, he needed to rush back to the FOS as soon as the sun started going down.

Now, IMHO I think it was just a bad idea for TPTB to have this cause the death of another character. Instead, it could have been better for them to have Jor-El give him a choice when the time came to sacrifice himself, or someone would die (and this would be Jor-El reading the future, not causing someone's death). They can still go this route, and I hope they do. Clark does not need someone to die to turn him into a man. He was at that point earlier in his life, so there should be no reason he is regressing.

This thing with Lana has really hurt the show. I can understand his desire for wanting a relationship with her in the 1st 3 seasons. The best time to have made a Clana season was S3. It should have been then when he realized that he either had to tell her the truth or give her up (before getting her in bed). One thing that makes him immature is that he wants to be normal so he can be with her, but he doesn't realize that no matter what happens, he is still from another planet. Even if once he did lose his powers as it happened in Arrival, someone of his upbringing should have witnessed Lana's reaction to the Kryptonians and realized that she was not fond of aliens whether they were good or bad. This was his worst fear as portayed by Scare. Why would he want to be with someone who would never truly love or respect him? The normal process would have been to reveal the secret to her, and then accept/reject her based on her response. If she had no problem with him being an alien, then great. But I'm thinking the show would have most likely taken the road that she would not accept him (after the death of her parents and the actions of those Kryptonians). For example, if you were interested in a person you had suspicions as being a racist, would you still be interested in them if you found out that they are a racist? I don't think so. Clark's (and every other person's who was raised on Earth) reaction would be to move on. What's more is that he knows Chloe accepts him and does care very much for him, so why waste your time with someone who will most likely hate the real you (which is what the evidence seems to point).

It really bothers me the way he stuck to his ideals in Velocity when Pete needed help, but somehow found a way to help him, and how he can't do that now with various situations this season. Going against one friend to help another and the loss of life (even though it was Jason Dante's) bothered him back then. Now, he was being impulsive with Lana without thinking of the consequences of not getting his powers back.

TPTB made a big mistake with the Lana character. They made her an all too important part of Clark's life; one who is unrealistically needed as part of his life. I'm not blaming Lana herself, it's that they positioned her in such a way that her character is now going against the very morals Clark once had. In Hug, we saw that Clark did not sway from his beliefs for anyone (not even Lana). But now, he wants to be normal so he can be with her, while still not telling the truth about himself. After seeing what damage the 2 Kryptonians did in Arrival, one would think he would want his powers more than ever so he can protect Earth from any further attacks. He doesn't know about Brainiac yet, but he does know that there is ship somewhere, and having fun w/ Lana instead of trying to plead or find a way to the FOS to get his powers back is not something he would have done in the past.

This is my main argument. I love many of the elements that Smallville has. The Porsche crash in the Pilot was brilliant. The meteor rocks was also a good idea IMHO. I like the Chloe Sullivan character, and the Lionel Luthor character has also added a great twist on this show. But certain ideals that are key to Superman that have been seen in the past are now missing. It was good to show that he can't help everyone (like in Ryan), but at this point (especially how we saw him after Recruit) he should be a lot more grown up. Chloe understands that he is destined for much greater things, and Clark knows this from the cave wall legend, and somewhat from Dr. Swann. By now, he needs to be realizing that he is the only one with his gifts and that they need to be shared to prevent evil that he has seen with his own eyes from winning. They need to have him realize the flaw in Lana (as she referred to in Precipice) and have him get over her once and for all. It would have been great if she saw him using his powers in the battle with the Kryptonians and set up this season as one where he confides in one of his friends (Chloe) while the other (Lana) is distant due to fear of him being an alien. Great tension scenes could have resulted if Lana and Chloe were made to be roommates with such a setup.

I'm hoping that they make Clark finally start helping people (as he did in Commencement) and progress like this to the season finale where he is confronted with a deadly situation that he averts and loses a great deal of his humanity. By this, I'm saying that with every episode, we start to see him progress on a journey to being less human with every decision he makes to sacrifice parts of his life to save someone so that we eventually realize that after he makes that one huge sacrifice to save that loved one in the season finale, that the life that was taken was the part of his human side that stood in the way of Jor-El's tests. This would be a journey, not a lightswitch, and would finally get our alien to where he should be at this point of his life. With the show winding down to its final seasons, this would be an appropriate step to take. One does not get into the Superman mindset in a year or 2.

CK&CK

10-19-2005, 02:48 AM

xrayvision,

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but mostly the difference between this Clark and the old one. Although, I gotta admit that the first 3 season 5 episodes were entertaining to watch despite Clark/Lana.....except for when they got caught sneaking down the stairs......I know....I know.....but it was done really well....and Chloe's reaction to it....plus the "Why me" comment were priceless. Anyway, I also agree with you that force feeding Lana deeper into the mythology than she's supposed to be has just plain hurt the show. I know they want to please the KK/Lana fans, but they should have done it through better stories than linking him via their ancestries........that was stupid.

Lord_Balthaazar

10-19-2005, 03:44 AM

Ryb, Very well said, I couldnt agree more and I for one Love Smallville. Clark Kent is doing just fine walking his path to Superman, just as Lex is slowly becoming the Lex Luthor we all know and love to hate.

jimmyolsenblues

10-19-2005, 06:42 AM

Thoroughly disappointed by Clark's selfishness
He put mortality before saving Smallville. That's just un-Supermanlike I think that is the whole point of the show for me. Clark currently is not superman, sometimes he does things that are Un-supermanlike and sometimes he does, it all happens when you put aside childish things. The show is about how he becomes s unselfish, how he becomes more than human.

angelfire east

10-19-2005, 12:08 PM

xrayvision great post:)

I understand what you saying about how Lana might react to knowing the secret, the only reason I think she'll accept is because tptb have been saying since day one that she will. That's she's the one person who will turely accept him for who he is. I know I shouldn't trust a word the tptb say since they always change there minds but I've heard it be said so many times it's sruck in my head.

I wonder if they go the root of Lana accept for being who he really is but the relationship not working because of Clark's lies and totally lack of respect to her with his selfishness. Thus she can't forgive him and turst him again.

One thing you bought up that I didn't think about is the ship the 2 krptonians came out of; Clark doesn't care about it. Lana told him about it, he saw the big hole it left then forgot about it. He's too busy playing with his girlfriend to care about the ship. Two "evil" people came out of it, who knows what else is in it. And what happens when someone finally opens it (Lex)? It could bring on a whole new world of hurt to everyone yet Clark doesn't care. It's his partly his fault it's here in the first place, Jor'El told him bad things would happen if humans got there hands on the stones but Clark didn't realy even try to look for them. He let Jason walk out of China with the second stone instead of doing the simple thing of x-raying the acra after it disappeared. He could have super speed and stoal it from Jason and no one would be none the wiser and the stone wouldn't be in the hands of a human.

snowblizzard

10-19-2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by President_Luthor
I think Clark's loft chat with Chloe demonstrates that he ... just ... doesn't ... get it.

This has nothing to do with whether Clark belongs in this or that 'ship, but with Clark having the willingness to step up to the plate and take whatever lumps come with telling "the girl he loves" the truth.

Chloe said it best: whether or not Lana doesn't take the truth as well as she did, he "owes" her the option to make that choice. He's SLEEPING with her, after all! Clark's 'too many sacrifices' excuse doesn't wash at all, IMHO. Now -- after four years of lies and secrets, dead FOTWs, Kent betrayal of the Rosses -- he decides that secrets are still the way to go with Lana! To protect her? To protect himself? He knows someone's life will be exchanged for his resurrection. Even though Lana's life is probably not at the top of that who-will-die list, he doesn't know that is certain. Would he not want to be able to look her in the eye and be able to say that he was honest with her -- finally?

What he apparently has difficulty with is having the courage to face the consequences for his lies. Someone's going to die (because he was late for a Jor-El appointment) and it looks like it will take that fateful sacrifice to force Clark into claiming his destiny. Meanwhile, many peoples' lives will be wrecked in his name: the Kents, Lana, Chloe, Pete, etc. etc.

And all he'll be able to offer as justification is: I had to lie ... to protect people. The superhuman cop-out continues ... :\

Well said..I agree

Ultron

10-20-2005, 05:22 AM

Let's keep one thing clear, it's not his fault people's lives are ruined. That's the Blame Someone Else mentality.

Clark isn't responsible for the actions of evil people with bad intentions. That's like blaming a mugging victim for walking down the street, when it's not his fault someone else mugged him. Or turn left onto a street and your car gets hit by a drunk driver, when if you turned right you wouldn't have been hit. Again, not your fault. It's purely the fault of the drunk driver, mugger, etc.

Clark protecting his secret is totally justified, but he's not responsible because some FOTW goes after him or his family/friends/etc. Or because Lex flips out and goes evil.

BTW Clark being late for his appointment with Jor-El - he was saving his family/friends/Smallville if not countless live. Who took his powers away? Jor-El. Clark's fault?

No. Blame Jor-El. He didn't have to make such a deadline, did he? He also didn't have to take Clark's powers away.

Chesay

10-20-2005, 11:40 AM

Like many others who have posted, I do not believe this version of Clark/Superman lives up to the moral standard created by the original Clark/Superman. Once I realized that I could let it go and just watch to see what their interpretation would be. It still hurts but not as much as hoping TPTB would see the light and realize their mistake.

The whole idea of Smallville being a tragedy bothers me, but I can see how they would interpret it that way. I think the idea of Clark having "powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men" is wonderful and something to celebrate by him and everyone, especially since he uses those abilities for good and not evil.

They don't want Clark to come across as too goody-goody but I would find it refreshing to see Clark defend being good instead of feeling guilty he arrived with a meteor shower that mutated a lot of people. This Clark is only marginally better than Lex. He lies, his morals are situational, he is motivated by guilt rather than a sense of genuine desire to do good, he is often a hypocrite when he criticizes others for behavior he has himself exhibited, and he does not stand "for Truth, Justice and the American way". What I find shocking is the fact some people actually see this version as noble, self-sacrificing, and moral.

These days I keep hoping it is all a "bad dream" a la Dallas and the end of the series will have Clark waking up and finding it is all a dream like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.

All about Clark

10-20-2005, 04:27 PM

The problem is that the moral standard you speak of isn't very realistic. One of the reasons he lies is to protect himself. If he didn't lie, he would have been found out a long time ago and been turned into some science experiment. He's trying to live a quiet life and not draw attention to himself, why do you think the caves and him are in a town called Smallville. It's being in hiding until he matures to the point he can protect himself, which this show even comments on.

I do agree they've gone overboard on the tragic part, but I guess if there wasn't, you wouldn't have a story to tell, such as FOTW's. And I also think they've laid the guilt on a little thick, but I think it shows he cares that he feels that.

I do see him having alot of good qualities, he always puts someone's life ahead of his own happiness even if they are undeserving.

And the comment about all the favors he asks Lex bothers me too, most of those favors are to help others, such as Ryan, Lois, Whitney and his dad, Lionel's cellmate and many others. I find it more peculiar that Lex who can afford anything, doesn't help a soul unless Clark asks him too, I guess none of that is rubbing off. He rarely asks a favor for his own needs, a guy who doesn't have much in the way possessions.

I still believe this story is meant to show his human side, which is all that's he's learned to this point and that his Kryptonian heritage will change him alot. Everyone acts like there's not enough material to last thru season 7, but I disagree, because as you know Clark has a very long way to go, and I want to see that materialize in a logical manner. I want to see him grow to become the man of steel we love, more than just his physical prowess.

xrayvision

10-21-2005, 09:29 PM

I could agree with some of the lies. But he should have told Lana by now. That was just a bad mistake. He knows she would freak out about aliens, but he should have told her before doing anything with her (which I think he shouldn't have done, but that's a whole other point). So as far as Lex, and the people who don't know him, I say he should lie or better yet just distance himself completely (though this would suck as the 2 would never have scenes).

I'd like to see a Clark who uses his powers for enjoyment every now and then and who also has a goody-goody side. This would be so much better than what there is now.

ClarksNextGF

10-23-2005, 03:00 PM

I guess I don't understand how people are saying that Clark is selfish? What did he do that is selfish? He is constantly putting himself in danger to save others. He NEVER asks for anything in return. What more could you ask of the kid? Actually, I really like the way Chloe said it - if there were more humans like you, the world would be a better place.

In Arrival - he left the FOS to save Chloe's life - that is not selfish. Then, he gets back to find a couple freaks running around hurting people. He COULD have said - well, your on your own, I have go to go back and have a chat with dear 'ol dad. But he didn't - knowing that Jor-el would be upset with him. He put his own life in danger to save other people. That is not selfish.

Then, he sends to two freaks away - he thought that he dealt with the "danger" that Jor-el warned him about. And he even says that at the end of the episode. He was WRONG, not SELFISH. Those are two completely different things. Yes, he could have left Lana bleeding and hurt behind the bookcase in Lex' mansion (because THAT would have been very Superman-like), but he didn't - He made sure she was ok. That's not selfish.

As a result of saving the town from the two freaks, he lost his powers. So, he starts living a normal life - what other choice does he have? How could he POSSIBLY know that there was a way to get his powers back?!? What's he going to do - WALK back to the Artic?

Even after he lost his powers, he STILL put his own life in danger to save others - again, NOT selfish. A few people seemed to have missed the part where HE GOT SHOT TRYING TO SAVE THE TOWN FROM DESTRUCTION!!! He wasn't just out for a joy ride with Chloe - he was trying to stop the bad guy - just like he always did.

Then Jor-el tells him that someone else has to die because Clark gets to live - and he's suppose to be HAPPY about that? How Superman-like would THAT be? Of course he's going to be upset that he just killed someone else. That's not selfishness, that's a having a conscience.

A few 'other' points -
Smallville is a show about Clark Kent "becoming" Superman. If you don't agree with that, then go back and read the original descriptions of the show from the first season.

Becoming Superman involves alot. There's more than just learning to save the world, and control his abilities. He has to learn to do it without asking for anything in return. I don't know anyone who would continuosly put themselves in danger to help others and not ask for a single thing in return. Not even a thank-you.

Another BIG part of the Superman mythology is "do not interfere" with the lives of humans. Clark needs to learn WHY that is so important. How many parents do you know that only have to tell their kid something once? Or, tell their kids not to do something, and the kid just says Ok, without any questioning or complaining? That doesn't happen. Somethings people need to learn on their own.

For example, the football thing from last season - I really like how the show handled that. Instead of Clark being told that he wasn't allowed to (well, actually he was, but anyway), Clark learned on his own that he can't do things like other "normal" kids - no matter how much he wants to. Again, that was very non-selfish decision.

Can someone give specific examples from the show of Clark doing something that was selfish?

hbkid21

10-23-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by ClarksNextGF
I guess I don't understand how people are saying that Clark is selfish? What did he do that is selfish? He is constantly putting himself in danger to save others. He NEVER asks for anything in return. What more could you ask of the kid? Actually, I really like the way Chloe said it - if there were more humans like you, the world would be a better place.

In Arrival - he left the FOS to save Chloe's life - that is not selfish. Then, he gets back to find a couple freaks running around hurting people. He COULD have said - well, your on your own, I have go to go back and have a chat with dear 'ol dad. But he didn't - knowing that Jor-el would be upset with him. He put his own life in danger to save other people. That is not selfish.

Then, he sends to two freaks away - he thought that he dealt with the "danger" that Jor-el warned him about. And he even says that at the end of the episode. He was WRONG, not SELFISH. Those are two completely different things. Yes, he could have left Lana bleeding and hurt behind the bookcase in Lex' mansion (because THAT would have been very Superman-like), but he didn't - He made sure she was ok. That's not selfish.

As a result of saving the town from the two freaks, he lost his powers. So, he starts living a normal life - what other choice does he have? How could he POSSIBLY know that there was a way to get his powers back?!? What's he going to do - WALK back to the Artic?

Even after he lost his powers, he STILL put his own life in danger to save others - again, NOT selfish. A few people seemed to have missed the part where HE GOT SHOT TRYING TO SAVE THE TOWN FROM DESTRUCTION!!! He wasn't just out for a joy ride with Chloe - he was trying to stop the bad guy - just like he always did.

Then Jor-el tells him that someone else has to die because Clark gets to live - and he's suppose to be HAPPY about that? How Superman-like would THAT be? Of course he's going to be upset that he just killed someone else. That's not selfishness, that's a having a conscience.

A few 'other' points -
Smallville is a show about Clark Kent "becoming" Superman. If you don't agree with that, then go back and read the original descriptions of the show from the first season.

Becoming Superman involves alot. There's more than just learning to save the world, and control his abilities. He has to learn to do it without asking for anything in return. I don't know anyone who would continuosly put themselves in danger to help others and not ask for a single thing in return. Not even a thank-you.

Another BIG part of the Superman mythology is "do not interfere" with the lives of humans. Clark needs to learn WHY that is so important. How many parents do you know that only have to tell their kid something once? Or, tell their kids not to do something, and the kid just says Ok, without any questioning or complaining? That doesn't happen. Somethings people need to learn on their own.

For example, the football thing from last season - I really like how the show handled that. Instead of Clark being told that he wasn't allowed to (well, actually he was, but anyway), Clark learned on his own that he can't do things like other "normal" kids - no matter how much he wants to. Again, that was very non-selfish decision.

Can someone give specific examples from the show of Clark doing something that was selfish?

Thank you. Very on point.

snowblizzard

10-23-2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by ClarksNextGF

Can someone give specific examples from the show of Clark doing something that was selfish?

I'll just give you one. I'm not going to sit here and write a book about the same things over and over again. The person who wrote this thread is absolutely correct on all points.

Now, when Clark comes back from the Arctic it is about 2 days after their graduation (June). He promises Lana in the Hospital..."No More Secrets, No More Lies". I imagine Lana feels happier than she's ever been. Don't forget she has been honest with him. Told him last episode of last year.."somehow I know this is meant for you" after seiing all those very abnormal powers in China and everything surrounding the stones. That would show me if I was Clark that no matter what my secret is, Lana will accept it, and support him and stand beside him because she really loves him. She also tells him about the spaceship and in Episode 2 tries to tell him everything about her and the killing of Genevieve. He just blows it away and Lana looks dissapointed. Only someone very stupid can't see these points.
Selfishness One:
He knows Chloe knows his secret, both Clark's and Lana's best friend, who wishes she was Clark's lover. Clark continues and he makes the initiative in her apartment and has sex with her, something which Lana from past episodes believes losing her virginity very serious thing. I would have felt very special to be thought this way. Well, 3 months go by it's now early Sept. school has started, Clark continues having his fun and using Lana sexually, and still his promise to her in the hospital was a huge lie. Chloe knows his secret, for 3 months now. If you don't consider this act by Clark selfishness I don't think you know the definition of the word being selfish. It's a heart breaker what he's doing to Lana, and if I was her father and found out about it I would be very upset with him....He's just riding the lie as far as it will take him. I don't like the way these producers have portrayed Clark Kent on this issue. No excuses....They have to correct this mistake as soon as they can. Lana would be more faithful knowing his secret than Chloe. Chloe is thinking for her journalistic career. Even in Aquaman she orders Clark around, when Lois is drowning she yells at Clark.."go, go...go". In other words Chloe says jump and Clark says..how high Chloe? An episode hasn't gone by this year without Chloe saying to Clark.."Go, Go..." ordering him like a general. The irony of this is that Chloe Sullivan was never even a character in the Superman mythology..

Another thing, why the producers brought Lois Lane in Smallville is beyond me. But, since they have and since they have signed her for 13 episodes they need to do something with her. They have portrayed her far better in sensitivity and caring than any other female lead. She truly belongs with Clark and I think only she can make him a proper Superman. He needs Lois Lane now that she has surfaced. If they don't correct these mistakes and forget love triangles with Lex Luthor. He's suppossed to be a bad person trying to run the world. Love never plays well in this type of a character. The way they portrayed him in Aquaman. That was good. They'll make a mistake if they attempted Lana, Lois, Chloe with Lex Luthor. Totally unthinkable and unacceptable. Don't accept another Season of Smallville if they don't correct these HUGE mistakes they have made..

ClarksNextGF

10-24-2005, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by snowblizzard
I'll just give you one. I'm not going to sit here and write a book about the same things over and over again. The person who wrote this thread is absolutely correct on all points.
well, at least your not biased...

Originally posted by snowblizzard
Now, when Clark comes back from the Arctic it is about 2 days after their graduation (June). He promises Lana in the Hospital..."No More Secrets, No More Lies". I imagine Lana feels happier than she's ever been. Don't forget she has been honest with him. Told him last episode of last year.."somehow I know this is meant for you" after seiing all those very abnormal powers in China and everything surrounding the stones. That would show me if I was Clark that no matter what my secret is, Lana will accept it, and support him and stand beside him because she really loves him. She also tells him about the spaceship and in Episode 2 tries to tell him everything about her and the killing of Genevieve. He just blows it away and Lana looks dissapointed. Only someone very stupid can't see these points.
Selfishness One:
He knows Chloe knows his secret, both Clark's and Lana's best friend, who wishes she was Clark's lover. Clark continues and he makes the initiative in her apartment and has sex with her, something which Lana from past episodes believes losing her virginity very serious thing. I would have felt very special to be thought this way. Well, 3 months go by it's now early Sept. school has started, Clark continues having his fun and using Lana sexually, and still his promise to her in the hospital was a huge lie. Chloe knows his secret, for 3 months now. If you don't consider this act by Clark selfishness I don't think you know the definition of the word being selfish. It's a heart breaker what he's doing to Lana, and if I was her father and found out about it I would be very upset with him....He's just riding the lie as far as it will take him. I don't like the way these producers have portrayed Clark Kent on this issue. No excuses....They have to correct this mistake as soon as they can. Lana would be more faithful knowing his secret than Chloe. Chloe is thinking for her journalistic career. Even in Aquaman she orders Clark around, when Lois is drowning she yells at Clark.."go, go...go". In other words Chloe says jump and Clark says..how high Chloe? An episode hasn't gone by this year without Chloe saying to Clark.."Go, Go..." ordering him like a general. The irony of this is that Chloe Sullivan was never even a character in the Superman mythology..

From what I can tell - this seems to be a general rant against the show in general. Which is fine, you don't have to like it. But, just because you don't agree with the direction of the show doesn't make Clark selfish. And I don't mean to attack you - but, I think that people are arguing two different points in this thread, and you posted a perfect example of that.

One point that you have is that Chloe knows Clark's secret, and Lana doesn't. That's not Clark's fault. He didn't tell Chloe, she found out on her own. He can't "un-tell" her.

After the "no more secrets, no more lies", Clark and Lana made an agreement that they didn't have to explain things that happened before the second meteor shower - Lana still hasn't told Clark that she killed Genevive. I can see how this *might* be construed as selfish, but I don't agree.

Another point is the direction that the producers are going with Clark is wrong - yet, in EVERY version of the Superman story, Clark hides his identity from the world. So, if he decides to tell Lana, that would go against the "traditional" view of Clark Kent. So, do we want to see a new & better Clark - or the traditional one?

"Clark continues having his fun and using Lana sexually" - That is completely wrong. I am not sure that I agree with the notion of Clark not being a virgin, but that's another topic. He is not being selfish here. Clark said "we should take it slow" and Lana said no, I don't to wait anymore. That is not selfish - that is a mutual decision they made together. He is not using her, he is in love with her. Selfish would be him having sex with Chloe or Lois who he has no feelings for. Selfish would be if he talked Lana into it when she wasn't ready, or if he used his super-speed and she didn't enjoy it (sorry to be blunt). But, from everything that has been on the show, she seems to be very happy with the way things are going.

I still don't see anything that points to Clark being selfish.

snowblizzard

10-24-2005, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by ClarksNextGF
well, at least your not biased...

From what I can tell - this seems to be a general rant against the show in general. Which is fine, you don't have to like it. But, just because you don't agree with the direction of the show doesn't make Clark selfish. And I don't mean to attack you - but, I think that people are arguing two different points in this thread, and you posted a perfect example of that.

One point that you have is that Chloe knows Clark's secret, and Lana doesn't. That's not Clark's fault. He didn't tell Chloe, she found out on her own. He can't "un-tell" her.

After the "no more secrets, no more lies", Clark and Lana made an agreement that they didn't have to explain things that happened before the second meteor shower - Lana still hasn't told Clark that she killed Genevive. I can see how this *might* be construed as selfish, but I don't agree.

Another point is the direction that the producers are going with Clark is wrong - yet, in EVERY version of the Superman story, Clark hides his identity from the world. So, if he decides to tell Lana, that would go against the "traditional" view of Clark Kent. So, do we want to see a new & better Clark - or the traditional one?

"Clark continues having his fun and using Lana sexually" - That is completely wrong. I am not sure that I agree with the notion of Clark not being a virgin, but that's another topic. He is not being selfish here. Clark said "we should take it slow" and Lana said no, I don't to wait anymore. That is not selfish - that is a mutual decision they made together. He is not using her, he is in love with her. Selfish would be him having sex with Chloe or Lois who he has no feelings for. Selfish would be if he talked Lana into it when she wasn't ready, or if he used his super-speed and she didn't enjoy it (sorry to be blunt). But, from everything that has been on the show, she seems to be very happy with the way things are going.

I still don't see anything that points to Clark being selfish.

First, you can't say that I'm ranting against the show and that I don't like it. I happen to like it, I have the DVDs of all 4 Seasons, and, each Episode this year. Do you?
This is the reason for all my points. About the direction of the show, it's my opinion and many others.

Here's a quote from TV Ratings of TV shows. THIS and THE SALE OF DVDS is what Producers care only about. Always, remember this.

"Is “Smallville” done after this season? Because, y’know, the new “Superman” film will be flung at giant screens next summer. This is season five, and the showrunners want to go to season seven.
There’s two ways the WB can look at the show.
Way One: It’s the lowest-rated network show in its timeslot except for "Love Inc." “Survivor,” “Joey,” “The OC,” “Alias” and “Everybody Hates Chris” kick the dookie out of “Smallville” every week."

So, as you can see I'm concerned about the future of the show but in the meantime I feel cheated by the producers. I stick and believe with what I say for the good of the show (I believe I'm not the only one feeling this way), because I like it. I just can't understand why in this site most members are all one dimensional and see only what they want to see and not what is there. I have put a lot of thought week in and week out about my opinions. Maybe it's a youth site, I don't know? I like the show just as much as you. It's my opinion..."different strokes for different folks"..

Daphne

10-24-2005, 09:25 AM

But my thoughts are on why do the writers make Clark like this? He isn't what I had originally thought Clark Kent to be.
They write in a way that they think will get the most viewers. That's the bottom line. They only care about viewers people.
In today's society, kids just wouldn't want to watch a goodie two shoes Clark Kent.
In this very site a question was asked, What would you do if you had Clarks powers? And I would say 90% of all answers had to do with cheating or stealing or becoming rich with the powers. It was frightening.
It's all about the veiwers.

Nerial

10-24-2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by snowblizzard

So, as you can see I'm concerned about the future of the show but in the meantime I feel cheated by the producers. I stick and believe with what I say for the good of the show (I believe I'm not the only one feeling this way), because I like it. I just can't understand why in this site most members are all one dimensional and see only what they want to see and not what is there. I have put a lot of thought week in and week out about my opinions. Maybe it's a youth site, I don't know? I like the show just as much as you. It's my opinion..."different strokes for different folks"..

I just popped in here out of curiosity, but I have to say it.

I don't care what this argument is about, there is no reason to insult the other members on this site because they do not agree with you. It is unfair, judgmental, and, frankly, immature to do so.

This is not a debate over world hunger, the avian flu, or Hurricaine Katrina. It's over Superman, and it's supposed to be fun.

If you don't like this site, you are free to leave it.

HalJordan4184

10-24-2005, 11:58 AM

Now we're starting to flame. Knock it off. It's one thing to warn, but don't start telling people they're free to leave. You're both pretty new, but try to watch out in the future, it's stuff like that, making generalizations, and personal statements about other posters that gets topics closed, and people banned.

As for the thread, Clark is selfish, and it the producers have stated previously they wish it to be that way. They said giving him the qualities opposite of superman will make his trnasformation into superman more poignant (read unbelievable).

I am at a loss as to how people can't see the selfishness in Clark. Saving another persons life, or even other peoples lives does not make you selfless. He can be selfish while still doing that. Because Clark ion smallville is holding a grudge. He doesn't want his powers, and he doesn't want to save people, and 99 tiomes out of 100 he only does soemthing because someone he is personally connected with is put in danger. He rarely if ever does anything without a personal gain. He deosn't help many random strangers, and when he does, it's only because he was passing by. He's never done the selfless hero bit, where he's sacrificed what he wants to be a hero. Sacrificing means you tried for it in the first place, not gave up on it without ever having it. CLark never sacrificed a relationship with Lana. He never had one with her to start with. He refused to start one because he didn't think he could be honest with her. He wanted her, yes, but he didn't sacrifice their relationship for noble reasons. He did that out of fear she couldn't accept him, as was expressed in the episode scare, where clarks biggest fear is lana rejecting him based on her finding out about who he is.

hbkid21

10-24-2005, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Now we're starting to flame. Knock it off. It's one thing to warn, but don't start telling people they're free to leave. You're both pretty new, but try to watch out in the future, it's stuff like that, making generalizations, and personal statements about other posters that gets topics closed, and people banned.

As for the thread, Clark is selfish, and it the producers have stated previously they wish it to be that way. They said giving him the qualities opposite of superman will make his trnasformation into superman more poignant (read unbelievable).

I am at a loss as to how people can't see the selfishness in Clark. Saving another persons life, or even other peoples lives does not make you selfless. He can be selfish while still doing that. Because Clark ion smallville is holding a grudge. He doesn't want his powers, and he doesn't want to save people, and 99 tiomes out of 100 he only does soemthing because someone he is personally connected with is put in danger. He rarely if ever does anything without a personal gain. He deosn't help many random strangers, and when he does, it's only because he was passing by. He's never done the selfless hero bit, where he's sacrificed what he wants to be a hero. Sacrificing means you tried for it in the first place, not gave up on it without ever having it. CLark never sacrificed a relationship with Lana. He never had one with her to start with. He refused to start one because he didn't think he could be honest with her. He wanted her, yes, but he didn't sacrifice their relationship for noble reasons. He did that out of fear she couldn't accept him, as was expressed in the episode scare, where clarks biggest fear is lana rejecting him based on her finding out about who he is.

Lana and Clark were together at the end of season 2 if you count that. Clark didn't want his powers, but was still helping everyone. Remember, he got shot trying to save Smallville. Not just any random person, but Smallville in a whole. He always investagting something with Chole and that leads him to always helping people. He try to help Flash become a better person last season. He also kept his promise and got that guy out of jail last season when he didnt have to(with the help of lex).

ClarksNextGF

10-24-2005, 02:15 PM

In the Season Finale for Season 4, we see some little kid wander into the path a meteor, and Clark runs up out of nowhere to save him. So, yes, we have seen Clark save a random person. But, you have to remember, this is a TV show, not a movie. It's really not possible to have Clark running around saving random people - it wouldn't 'fit' with the show. Besides, it's a small town - there's just not that many people in need of saving.

Yes, Clark is a 'reluctant hero', but that doesn't make him selfish. Even though he is not happy about running around saving others, he still does it.
What about in Season 1, when he broke is date with Lana to save Chloe from the Ice-guy - he didn't have to do that.
What about when he broke his date with Lana to try and save Pete from the worm-thing - he didn't have to do that.
What about when he kicked Lana out of his loft, and told her to go be with Whitney instead - he DEFINITELY didn't have to do that.
He has forfeited his relationship with Lana a number of times in order to help others. And Yes, they DID have have a relationship at the end of Season 2 (the whole sitting under the tree watching the horses thing). And in the first couple episodes of Season 3, Lana all but begged Clark to 'rekindle' things. But he wouldn't, cuz even though he wanted to - he didn't think it was fair to her. (until he lost his powers, and didn't have to lie to her anymore)

Again - I would like for someone to list specific examples of Clark being selfish.

HalJordan4184 - Could you PM me and let me know where you saw/read that interview with the producers? I would like to see that. Thanks :)

snowblizzard

10-24-2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Nerial

I don't care what this argument is about, there is no reason to insult the other members on this site because they do not agree with you. It is unfair, judgmental, and, frankly, immature to do so.

If you don't like this site, you are free to leave it.

Hi, I don't know who you are but you are a perfect example of my point.
#1: Show me where am I insulting anyone or the writer up above?
#2: Also show me where do I say I don't like this site?

You see you rush to conclutions because you don't like what someone writes or you disagree with it.
All I'm trying to say is that everyone believes or thinks or likes different things. Very rarely you'll find two people having the same tastes. You might like Apples and I might like Oranges. Of course, don't expect the opinion of a 13 year old to be the same as a 30 year old or as mine.
I'm 47 years old and of course my outlook in life in general or about Smallville will differ from someone who's in their teens or twenties. It doesn't mean I don't like this site.

You have unfortunately misinterpreted the whole point here.
All your fingers aren't the same but you live with them and they're part of you. Why should I leave the site, not because I don't like it but, only because you don't agree with my opinions?
I respect yours and you should respect mine....

HalJordan4184

10-24-2005, 03:53 PM

As has been pointed out in numerous threads, being on one date, does niot constitue a relationship. They had ONE date previous to season five. ONE. ONE ACTUAL DATE. The concert he forfeited, they were going as friends, as Lana was dating Whitney. He didn't sacrifice a relationship with her there. Saving Chloe and Pete, they are his two best friends. Would you let you're best friend die simply because you were on a date. I'd cancel my date to if my best friends were dying and i could stop it.

And the kid in the season four finale was made to seem like a random coincedence. I took it as he was just running by and stopped to help. Then he immediately took off again. If i drive by a car accident, and the cars on fire, and someone is stuck inside, and i just drive by and they die, i couldn't live with that, and clark probably couldnt live with letting that kid die in front of him. But he's hardly a self sacrificing hero, who's given his all to help people. He doesn't want to give anything, and if some episodes are looked at, he expects to be rewarded for BAD behavior. Like in Slumber, when he reamt his parents bought him a new truck for coming home, after he got himself hooked on red k and spent the summer robbing banks and partying in exclusive clubs. I find nothing admirable and above average about this clark. You go to a single firehouse in america, and you can find ten guys more heroic than this clark.

All about Clark

10-24-2005, 05:32 PM

HalJordan, what exactly do you expect, for the poor boy to have absolutely no life at all, running around town looking for people in danger, get real.

Everyone is intitled to have a personal life, to dream; you appear as if he doesn't deserve this. No.

And you can't say that he didn't give up Lana in Cool to save Chloe. And yes, Lana would never have gone out with Clark if there wasn't a chance there and you know it. She's had something for him from the start and wanted him more than Whitney, that whole year was about that internal turmoil of hers. And you can't tell me he wouldn't have saved someone else, yes it was Chloe, but he would have done it for anyone in her position.

xrayvision

10-24-2005, 06:58 PM

I say the main reason Clark is selfish is by not telling Lana his secret before he slept with her (which IMO he shouldn't have done, but that's another topic). If I was in his position, I would make sure that I would be accepted for my true self before doing anything like that. This is because I wouldn't want to deal with someone who wouldn't like the true me. In Clark's case, it should also be because it's the right thing to do when he has any reason to think that Lana hates aliens, so finding out before sleeping with her would have been much better than what he did.

As much as he didn't have his powers, he still knew that he was an alien and hiding something like that from someone whom you're afraid hates aliens is just bad.

As far as Chloe giving Clark orders, I don't look at it this way. Clark is unwilling to be the type of hero he should, and Chloe is trying to motivate him. She always tells him that he's meant for much more than what he thinks of himself. She even said that the world needs a hero now, but he has been resenting his powers more than ever now.

It will be a shame that they will have to kill someone off for Clark to finally understand what he has to do.

Nerial

10-24-2005, 07:23 PM

Okay, HalJordan, you're right. I apology for tensing up the thread. But, back onto topic again...

Sorry, I don't see Clark as selfish. That's not to say he can't do selfish things, but to say someone IS something implies that they are that way all the time, or at least any chance they get, IMO. :)

Clark has done selfish things--I'll give you that. But, to me, it boils down to him being a teenager, him not accepting himself, and honestly, him uncertain what to do with his life. He isn't Superman yet, not to me, but I see the hints of it coming out.

SmallvilleMan

10-24-2005, 07:48 PM

I don't see Clark being selfish by not telling Lana his secret. He did it, because he thought the secret no longer played a role in his life and it was in the past. Whether you or I, believe it is doesn't really matter imo, because Clark believed it was in the past. Telling her his secret, also puts her in danger and Clark would never want to do it.

Clark never sacrificed a relationship with Lana? Wha? Did someone miss the beginning of season 3? They were in a relationship, doesn't matter if it was for 1 day or 1 year, it still was a relationship. Then you say saving people isn't selfless? Huh? It isn't? Then what is? I could look up selfess in the direction and i'm pretty sure risking your life to save people is selfless.

HalJordan4184

10-24-2005, 11:13 PM

Selfless is more than doing something good. Selfless is accepting it, no matter the consequences, and doing the right thing. It's personally sacrificing what you want to do the right thing. CLark hasn't sacrificed anything. AGAIN, ONE DATE IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP. It's one date. A relationship is two people growing closer over time, not the on again off again Clana. ANd CLark hasn't sacrificed a realtionship with ehr to do the right things. He's sacrificed one with her, because he doesn't want her to find out what he really is. He's afraid she'll reject him. A selfless individual would tell her and let her make up her own mind, as it's the right thing to do. Clark refuses to give her that option.

hbkid21

10-25-2005, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Selfless is more than doing something good. Selfless is accepting it, no matter the consequences, and doing the right thing. It's personally sacrificing what you want to do the right thing. CLark hasn't sacrificed anything. AGAIN, ONE DATE IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP. It's one date. A relationship is two people growing closer over time, not the on again off again Clana. ANd CLark hasn't sacrificed a realtionship with ehr to do the right things. He's sacrificed one with her, because he doesn't want her to find out what he really is. He's afraid she'll reject him. A selfless individual would tell her and let her make up her own mind, as it's the right thing to do. Clark refuses to give her that option.

You have to remember Clark never volutary topld anyone. If it was up to him, Pete and Chole would have never known his secret.

You said something aboue before this post about Clark saving that kid because of a concidence. Clark have gone out of his way to save pleny of people. People that not even his friends. Watch Hug or the first episode with Alicia in it. There aren't too many occasions where you going to see Clark go out the way to save anyone because the show is only on for a hour and they simply don't have that much time to show all of that...lol

HalJordan4184

10-25-2005, 09:24 AM

The thing is, that's the important stuff that they should be showing. Not Lana gets possessed by a witch. This is Clark's journey, well... supposedly. But we aren't getting Clark's journey. We're getting how Chloe pushes Clark into becoming a reluctant superhero, and how Lana is the be all and end all of everything.

Nerial

10-25-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
AGAIN, ONE DATE IS NOT A RELATIONSHIP. It's one date. A relationship is two people growing closer over time, not the on again off again Clana. ANd CLark hasn't sacrificed a realtionship with ehr to do the right things. He's sacrificed one with her, because he doesn't want her to find out what he really is. He's afraid she'll reject him. A selfless individual would tell her and let her make up her own mind, as it's the right thing to do. Clark refuses to give her that option.

I will agree that Lana and Clark have not been in a solid relationship long enough to constitute having sex. And, also, that him NOT telling her, while they are in a relationship, is unfair. Chloe is right--Clark owes Lana the option.

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Selfless is more than doing something good. Selfless is accepting it, no matter the consequences, and doing the right thing. It's personally sacrificing what you want to do the right thing. CLark hasn't sacrificed anything.

I do consider him not telling her, after he's back to being an alien, as a selfish act. I don't think it makes him a selfish person, because like I said before, a selfish person is someone who is always out for themselves, and Clark isn't like that for most things in his life.

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Saving Chloe and Pete, they are his two best friends. Would you let you're best friend die simply because you were on a date. I'd cancel my date to if my best friends were dying and i could stop it.

....If i drive by a car accident, and the cars on fire, and someone is stuck inside, and i just drive by and they die, i couldn't live with that, and clark probably couldnt live with letting that kid die in front of him. But he's hardly a self sacrificing hero, who's given his all to help people.

I'd cancel my date, too, but now we're stretching into the whole philosophical "can there truly be any altruistic behavior in humanity?" People donate money, blood, and old clothes because helping others makes you feel good. No harm in that feeling, but would you still do it if you didn't feel satisfied with yourself in the end?

You're stating that Clark does what he does because if he didn't, (and knew that he could have prevented something), he couldn't live with himself. Well...isn't that one reason why Superman in the comics does what he does? Because he knows he can, and can't stop himself from getting involved.

You've pointed out that Clark usually ends up saving the lives of family and friends.

But, in "Rogue" Clark stopped a bus with hitting a homeless guy, and it ended up getting him black-mailed by a dirty cop.

Or, in "Scare" when he offered his blood to Lex, and knew that if he did, his secret would be exposed.

You can still say, "no one could live with themselves otherwise," but that can be said for all of Superman's actions. He's so powerful and can do so many things, that he blames himself when he can't get there in time. Plus, hasn't it been stated before that Superman likes being a hero? Well, that's not altruistic--people love him, adore him--there are dolls and lunchboxes with his picture on them. He certainly gets gratitude for his good deeds, so while I think he would continue even without all the human-hype, he is certainly thanked for his actions.

Teenage Clark is rarely thanked. Teenage Clark riskes, not usually being killed, but being exposed all the time. Teenage Clark can be selfish, cowardly, and stupid at times, but in the end, he's heroic at heart. In fact, being heroic is what got him shot in "Hidden."