Clark Is A Murderer [Archive] - KSiteTV Television & Movie Forums

MBCorp

01-26-2006, 10:26 PM

F-Stop Blues

01-26-2006, 10:59 PM

I kinda feel bad for the character of Lana. The writers and the producers make it impossible to like her. Maybe they actually hate her so they make her the whipping "boy" for the fans. Seriously how could you possibly like her. Its impossible. She's intolerable and now she pointless to the show since Clark will never tell her.

JD2

01-26-2006, 11:04 PM

Yes! This is absolutely retarted! I am piping mad!

PeteM

01-26-2006, 11:07 PM

Don't understand all of this Lana bashing.

Personally, I hated this episode. Always had since I always felt it was ratings gimmick.

Leaving that aside, regardless if whether Clark chose to save Lana, there was a strong likelihood that Jonathon was going to die very soon, if not that night. He was on his way to confront Lionel.

Neither Lionel nor his bad heart was going away. Could have keeled over at any time.
It was not like his altercation with Lionel was anymore physically taxing than working on the farm. Or mentally taxing as his new job as a senator.

BoSoxJim

01-26-2006, 11:10 PM

i think murderer is just a wee-bit harsh.

however, i will agree that clark acted out of character by choosing to let another loved one die (which jor-el said would happen) instead of lana.

Arista 07

01-26-2006, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by PeteM
Leaving that aside, regardless if whether Clark chose to save Lana, there was a strong likelihood that Jonathon was going to die very soon, if not that night. He was on his way to confront Lionel.

Neither Lionel nor his bad heart was going away. Could have keeled over at any time.
It was not like his altercation with Lionel was anymore physically taxing than working on the farm. Or mentally taxing as his new job as a senator.
It doesn't quite work like that. Logically speaking, had Jonathan been on death row and died of natural causes, not associated with Clark's own resurrection someone other than Jonathan would have to die to amend Clark's spared life. Evidently, that didn't happen. There was one ultimate death and it belonged to Jonathan.

Additionally, I think the word "murderer" is very apt. Jor-El was clear on his initial conditions in "Hidden" and was, again, in "Reckoning." Clark was warned that if he used the crystal and changed past events, another would die in Lana's place. I can't make excuses for his selfish, careless, cold actions. He didn't even give it a second thought. IMO, these choices he's made *uninfluenced* removes him from Superman permanently. He may end with his underwear outside blue tights, but I find him encompassing Supes selfless, compassionate personality implausible.

OutlawAngel

01-26-2006, 11:26 PM

What I didnt like about it was this. And I aint no doctor but I do know a thing or 2 about heart disease unfortunatly.

If Jonathan's heart was already that week shouldnt of Lana's car crash have sparked his heart attack?

And like PeteM said if not tonight then most likely Jonathan would be on his way out soon. It was being made clear to us that his heart problem was not getting any better.

In whatever the next confrontation was whether Joanthan met up with Lionel sometime again...which he would of had too....Or if he had to chase a loose cow or work on a tractor or argue with Lois over politics or whatever Senators do then I would imagine he would of been dead soon anyway.

But I didnt like the 'playing God' thing with the people Clark is supposed to love lives that Clark played.

And I really loved Annette O'Toole in this episode but I didnt like how she pretty much shruged off the time warp thing like it wasnt a big thing and she had expected it as much as we had.

Arista 07

01-26-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by PeteM
Leaving that aside, regardless if whether Clark chose to save Lana, there was a strong likelihood that Jonathon was going to die very soon, if not that night. He was on his way to confront Lionel.

Neither Lionel nor his bad heart was going away. Could have keeled over at any time.
It was not like his altercation with Lionel was anymore physically taxing than working on the farm. Or mentally taxing as his new job as a senator.
It doesn't quite work like that. Logically speaking, had Jonathan been on death row and died of natural causes, not associated with Clark's own resurrection someone other than Jonathan would have to die to amend Clark's spared life. Evidently, that didn't happen. There was one ultimate death and it belonged to Jonathan.

Additionally, I think the word "murderer" is very apt. Jor-El was clear on his initial conditions in "Hidden" and was, again, in "Reckoning." Clark was warned that if he used the crystal and changed past events, another would die in Lana's place. I can't make excuses for his selfish, careless, cold actions. He didn't even give it a second thought. IMO, these choices he's made uninfluenced removes him from Superman, permanently. He may end with his underwear outside blue tights, but I find him embodying Supes selfless, compassionate personality implausible.

BoSoxJim

01-26-2006, 11:35 PM

i still disagree with calling him a murderer. for example, say you are an emergency room doctor and you have to choose between two critically wounded people. the one you choose to work on lives and the other one dies. does that make you a murderer?

firefly2000

01-26-2006, 11:39 PM

I thought it was a great episode and if you had watched Veronica Mars last night, you'd know, it could be 100 times worse.

I think that Clark only heard the part where it was his only way to bring Lana back. I don't think he payed attention beyond hearing it was a way to save Lana. And that he thought the burden was going to fall on his shoulders alone. Because Jo-rel worded it in a way that made it sound as though it was another test. I don't think Clark knew he was trading a life for a life.

He felt responsible for Lana's death and he was trying to bring her back. Watching the trailer for next week leads me to believe that he's going to punish himself for making such a rash decision.

Everyone seems to forget that he's still and 18 year old kid and not yet Superman. Everyone makes mistakes, especially when they are emotional and he's no exception.

I thought it was the best hour of TV I've seen in a long time.:)

sstray72

01-26-2006, 11:40 PM

I wouldn't call him a "murderer," but he is selfish and careless. He was told that somebody else was going to die if he saved Lana. He basically said "Screw that other person, let them die!! I need my Lana!!" There's no arguing this point, it's not Lana bashing, it's a fact. He didn't know who would die, and he ambivalent about it.

BoSoxJim

01-26-2006, 11:44 PM

to firefly2000: btw, i pray they bring forefly back to tv.

anyway, clark knew someone he loved was going to have to die for him. he's known that for a long time now. by bringing lana back he knew it would mean someone else he loved would have to take her place.

Poetic Chaos

01-26-2006, 11:48 PM

I didn't like Jonathan either and am glad he's finally out. But I'm definitely not a fan of kryptonians playing God. I'm just glad that Clark and Lana are done for good. She'll learn the secret eventually, but their romance is over. Not enough series left to play the longing game that would have a point. Just repair the Clana friendship, keep Clex at odds and build the Clois and all will be fine in Smallville.

Arista 07

01-26-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
i still disagree with calling him a murderer. for example, say you are an emergency room doctor and you have to choose between two critically wounded people. the one you choose to work on lives and the other one dies. does that make you a murderer?
That scenario doesn't work for a myriad of reasons. For one, doctors save lives. Clark has the blood of two people on his hands, directly and indirectly. Secondly, Lana (who imagine is one of the 'victims') was already dead. In favor of Lana, a corpse, Clark decided to take the life of another person, and from their breath she would live. He deliberately knocked off his father to restore Lana to an unharmed state. How is that not murder?

Also, I could argue that Clark imagined the next life would be some stranger who is most certainly not his father. (Despite that option being just as cold.) But the original conditions were "The life of someone you love will be exchanged," leaving very few people as replacements and putting them all in jeopardy.

firefly2000

01-26-2006, 11:51 PM

Jor-el said that there was one trial Clark had left to face. He didn't say you're trading one life for another. I don't think Clark understood the ramifications.

BoSoxJim

01-26-2006, 11:52 PM

to arista: congrats on your use of the word myriad.

now please tell me the myriad of ways that the hypothetical situation does not apply.

yes, lana was already dead. clark wanted a way to save the love of his life. i'm pretty sure he was hoping to deal with one problem at a time and thought there may be a chance he could find a way to save his loved ones now he knew the reaper was coming to collect.

it was the wrong decision but not the act of a murderer.

F-Stop Blues

01-27-2006, 12:00 AM

How can Clark ever look at Lana again? He decided to save her life thus ending his fathers and she dumps him. I pray to God that he finally moves on but i seriously doubt it.

But here's a question. What is Lana going to do now? What is her story for the rest of the season? The Spaceship? Her getting with Lex? If she's not with Clark then honestly what is her purpose?

scoobycookies

01-27-2006, 12:01 AM

Well it look like fate still wanted lana dead in the new timeline ,but clark knew about lana accident after reversing time and intervene her death.
LOL :lol: Now looking back on the Arrival Episode, I wonder if Lana was meant to die in Lex's office there too, if Clark had just left her there to go to the FOS like he was supposed to. Seems like fate has always wanted pinky dead. Fate got fed up with Clark intervening so much, that Fate decided to pwn him. Too bad it had to be JK who suffered the consequences. :(

edited: even in Lexmas, lana dies :eek: Fate my new best friend lol

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
to arista: congrats on your use of the word myriad.

now please tell me the myriad of ways that the hypothetical situation does not apply.

yes, lana was already dead. clark wanted a way to save the love of his life. i'm pretty sure he was hoping to deal with one problem at a time and thought there may be a chance he could find a way to save his loved ones now he knew the reaper was coming to collect.

it was the wrong decision but not the act of a murderer.
I did. It's up thread. And, buddy, there's no need to get pissy. So you have an opposing opinion. Good for you. No one said you had to concede.

Just FYI, to kill someone (with the intent to kill) is murder. If you commit such an act you may, eventually, be sorry and mournful. However, that doesn't make you any less of a murderer. Clark knew that by reversing time and "resurrecting" Lana, another would die.

Originally posted by F-Stop Blues
But here's a question. What is Lana going to do now? What is her story for the rest of the season? The Spaceship? Her getting with Lex? If she's not with Clark then honestly what is her purpose?
Why must Lana have a story? I'm burnt out on Lanaville and it, IMHO, has played a large role in ruining the show. However, I no better than to expect anything less. I think Lana's a future is a combination of option #1 and #2. Clark probably won't be able to look at Lana again, not out of disgust for her but self-disgust and wanting to seperate himself from her, for her safety. There's no one left for Lana to "pal around with" other than Lex. And I'm certain Lex will be very inviting.

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 12:15 AM

There's no one left for Lana to "pal around with" other than Lex. And I'm certain Lex will be very inviting.

Oh Christ. They're going to ruin Lex's storyline just to give Lana something to do. Lex: Backup Boyfriend #4

F-Stop Blues

01-27-2006, 12:25 AM

It would be hilarious imo if she then started hooking up with Lex. I mean can she go one episode without a boyfriend?

mallory

01-27-2006, 12:51 AM

Ok, the person you love most has just died. You are given a choice. You can bring him/her back. But someone else you love will die. You don't know who it is, just that someone else must die. What do you do?

We can never know. But people usually choose their most beloved first, in all things. As it generally should be.

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by mallory
Ok, the person you love most has just died. You are given a choice. You can bring him/her back. But someone else you love will die. You don't know who it is, just that someone else must die. What do you do?

We can never know. But people usually choose their most beloved first, in all things. As it generally should be.
So Lana should be loved more so than Clark's father?

*Maroon 5 plays in the background*

I gather you're a Clana shipper, no?

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 12:58 AM

you just contradicted yourself. clark's intent was not to kill someone, it was to save someone. if you think he wanted anybody to die then you really need some help.

and i wasn't getting pissy. you said my argument was wrong in a myriad of ways yet you only gave one.

myriad does not equal one.

and i'm not about to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed person ;)

hbkid21

01-27-2006, 01:01 AM

sstray72

01-27-2006, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
you just contradicted yourself. clark's intent was not to kill someone, it was to save someone. if you think he wanted anybody to die then you really need some help.

He wanted to save Lana and let someone ELSE die. He has known for months now that somebody was going to die. He found out that it was Lana, and he begged to change it. Jor-El EXPLICITLY said that it was nature taking it's course and if he chose to change it, nature was still going to take its course. In other words, if you save Lana, someone else is going to die to pay your debt. He chose to save Lana's life by sacrificing someone else's. That is wrong, and not many people would be so self-centered to do that.

Originally posted by hbkid21
That like calling everyone on Final Destination murderers. It was going to happen, either way. If Clark never time travel, John would of time the next day, week, or year. His heart wasn't going to last that much longer either way.

And that death would've paid Clark's death as Jor-El predicted. But if Clark went to the fortress and begged to save Jonathan's life and Lana died instead, it would've been just as wrong.

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 01:13 AM

arista: you say doctors save lives. very good arguement as clark saves lives every week on the show. and just like doctors, sometimes make bad decisions that costs lives.

sstray: i have posted that same thing (clark knew somebody he loved had to die for him). however, even though clark made the wrong decision, it was not murder.

the writer's should have let us in on his thought process. my guess, is that they assumed we knew clark would not just trade a life for a life without thinking he could save them.

he was trying to solve one problem at a time but in the end discovered he was dead (pardon the pun) wrong.

again, this does not make him a murderer.

hbkid21

01-27-2006, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by sstray72
He wanted to save Lana and let someone ELSE die. He has known for months now that somebody was going to die. He found out that it was Lana, and he begged to change it. Jor-El EXPLICITLY said that it was nature taking it's course and if he chose to change it, nature was still going to take its course. In other words, if you save Lana, someone else is going to die to pay your debt. He chose to save Lana's life by sacrificing someone else's. That is wrong, and not many people would be so self-centered to do that.

And that death would've paid Clark's death as Jor-El predicted. But if Clark went to the fortress and begged to save Jonathan's life and Lana died instead, it would've been just as wrong.

Exactly. Not to mention Clark saves people lives all the time. So he always changing destiniys. So if Clark a murderer and responsible for killing JK, then my god we found the weapon of mass destruction.

watcher4

01-27-2006, 01:20 AM

Maybe this will finally show Clark that there are really consequences to the decisions he makes. And some of those consequences are hugh and have long-standing ramifications. Jor-El warned him that someone else might die. Yet, Clark made the decision to save Lana. Whether you like it or not-Jonathan's death was a consequence of Clark's decision! That is not saying that it was necessarily his fault-but it was the consequence of his decision. Clark needs to take responsibility for that much.

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 01:24 AM

That like calling everyone on Final Destination murderers. It was going to happen, either way. If Clark never time travel, John would of time the next day, week, or year. His heart wasn't going to last that much longer either way.
Le sigh. Didn't I explain this on page one?

Stop the presses! Someone made a Final Destination reference. Battle of wits, indeed. I refuse to engage in this sort of inane argument.

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 01:35 AM

watcher4:

well said. i completely agree that JKs death is his responsibility.

however, the original poster is trying to say that clark is a murderer as his intent was to kill somebody.

people are entitlted to their opinion but that is just plain (well i'll leave it at that).

clark needs to learn: "with great power comes great responsibility"

otherwise he'll wind up like lex: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

arista:

no fair using my insult to attack somebody else's post.

get your own witty quote. LOL. ;)

Reign

01-27-2006, 01:35 AM

Maybe if a court knew all the facts, Clark would get a charge of negligent homicide or manslaughter... he acted in reckless abandonment in which he KNEW that there was an unjustifiable risk of harm. He didn't have to have the intent.

With regards to causation, Clark arguably was a proximate cause of Jonathan's death given the circumstances. But we don't really know to these allegations because no one has ever dealth with the legal issue of time travel and liability.

kekekeke... I'm in law school

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 01:38 AM

i think that's already been done. lol!

anyway, OJ was found not guilty so i doubt superman would do hard time.

ma200

01-27-2006, 01:45 AM

I do not believe nor want this version of Clark Kent to become Superman.

First of all, Superman is not something that he becomes. He's either Superman or he's not. And of course, he's not nor has he ever been one.

And second of all, there's no clear indication that he is a murderer since we don't really know exactly what he planned to do before going back in time. Is all he's going to do is save Lana OR is he trying to prevent Lana's death and whoever else's death? Kinda like the Butterfly Effect when Ashton Kutcher kept trying to fix everyone's lives but it just kept getting worse.

The point is we don't really know.

Reign

01-27-2006, 01:46 AM

I didn't read the Trial comics. what was that about?

OJ Simpson was acquitted in the murder trial, however in a civil trial he was found liable for the batter of Ron and Nicole.

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 02:11 AM

he wasn't tried on earth and isn't relevant to this thread. however, here is a blurb i found on it...

"Weakened after a titanic battle with the monstrous villain Parasite, Superman inexplicably finds himself shackled and under arrest by a group of intergalactic officers. Taken to another galaxy, the Man of Steel has his powers negated and is instantly put on trial by a fearsome alien tribunal. Discovering that one of his relatives contributed to the annihilation of the Kryptonian race, Superman is found guilty of the crime due to ancestry and sentenced to death. Now with his powers depleted and the jury in, Superman, with the help of Superboy and Supergirl, must find a way to escape his sentence before his execution."

PeteM

01-27-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by sstray72
I wouldn't call him a "murderer," but he is selfish and careless. He was told that somebody else was going to die if he saved Lana. He basically said "Screw that other person, let them die!! I need my Lana!!" There's no arguing this point, it's not Lana bashing, it's a fact. He didn't know who would die, and he ambivalent about it.

That is crap.

Before the reset, Jonathon was on his way to see Lionel where presumbably he would have died from a heart attack. Lana was on driving through an intersection where the bus driver ranned a stop light because of party goers on the bus.

Presumbably all of this Lana and Clark bashing is based on the assumption that because of Lana's accident, Jonathon would have not continued on to meet Lionel and presumbably he will not have a heartattack that night or any time in the foreseeable future. For that to happen, I am also supposed to assume that Lionel and Jonathon's heart condition will just magically go away. Right.

But even following that logic, all of this Lana bashing is ridiculous because WITHOUT HER CAR ACCIDENT Johnathon would have died the first time around. Hello, unless the following occured, Jonathon would have been on his way to his date with destiny.

1. If Lana didn't meet Lex, no accident - Jonathon dies.

2. If Lex didn't call or chase after Lana, no accident - Jonathon dies.

3. If bus driver was paying and didn't run a stop sign, no accident - Jonathon dies.

4. If party goers weren't so rowdy, bus driver would not have been distract, no accident Jonathon dies.

So unless Lana was in that car accident, Jonathon is room temperature. So why the bashing?

The Clark bashing is also unwarranted because his dad had a heart condition; it was just a matter of time before it goes. How do we know that he wouldn't still go to meet with Lionel that very night. How unlikely is it that he will never meet with Lionel again?

Lara Lane

01-27-2006, 10:17 AM

Clark a murderer? No, Responsible, yes, but even if his actions were the ones that triggered all these events, he can't be called a murderer. Technically.

True, he was careless, he didn't think about the consequences, he was selfish, immature, selfish, unaware of the repercusions, selfish, mind numbed, selfish, did I say he was selfish?

This Clark will have to have a real develpoment from now on for me to buy it. Otherwise I'll start to think of Smallville as a huge Al/Miles fanfic.

sstray72

01-27-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by PeteM
That is crap.

Before the reset, Jonathon was on his way to see Lionel where presumbably he would have died from a heart attack. Lana was on driving through an intersection where the bus driver ranned a stop light because of party goers on the bus.

Presumbably all of this Lana and Clark bashing is based on the assumption that because of Lana's accident, Jonathon would have not continued on to meet Lionel and presumbably he will not have a heartattack that night or any time in the foreseeable future. For that to happen, I am also supposed to assume that Lionel and Jonathon's heart condition will just magically go away. Right.

But even following that logic, all of this Lana bashing is ridiculous because WITHOUT HER CAR ACCIDENT Johnathon would have died the first time around. Hello, unless the following occured, Jonathon would have been on his way to his date with destiny.

1. If Lana didn't meet Lex, no accident - Jonathon dies.

2. If Lex didn't call or chase after Lana, no accident - Jonathon dies.

3. If bus driver was paying and didn't run a stop sign, no accident - Jonathon dies.

4. If party goers weren't so rowdy, bus driver would not have been distract, no accident Jonathon dies.

So unless Lana was in that car accident, Jonathon is room temperature. So why the bashing?

The Clark bashing is also unwarranted because his dad had a heart condition; it was just a matter of time before it goes. How do we know that he wouldn't still go to meet with Lionel that very night. How unlikely is it that he will never meet with Lionel again?

No, ^^^this is crap.

The entire point of calling Clark careless is that he made a conscious decision to change the past even though Jor-El said nature would still take its course and balance be achieved. Did Clark know that Jonathan was going to die anyway? No. All Clark knew is that SOMEBODY ELSE would die in exchange for Lana's life, and he did it anyway. The fact that Jonathan PROBABLY would've died is purely coincidental, and does not factor into Clark's decision.

Coyote

01-27-2006, 10:41 AM

I hadn't thought about it when I watched the show, but the logic is very solid that Clark did kill his dad. Clark was warned by Jor-El, but he deliberately chose to sacrifice someone else to bring back Lana, who was already dead at that point.

The argument that Jonathan had a bad heart and would have died some other time anyway has no merit. If you deliberately put some other random person at risk of death in order to save your girlfriend's life, saying that person would have died soon anyway because of his heart condition will not get you released from prison. :lol:

PeteM

01-27-2006, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Coyote

The argument that Jonathan had a bad heart and would have died some other time anyway has no merit. If you deliberately put some other random person at risk of death in order to save your girlfriend's life, saying that person would have died soon anyway because of his heart condition will not get you released from prison. :lol:

Harm's way. Jonathon's was already in harm's way by having a bad heart.

If we are going to assign blame for a heart attack resulting from an altercation.

Why don't we assign some of the blame for the altercation?

There is Martha for accepting the check.

There is Lois for spending the check.

There is even Jonathon for running for Senate.

The basis of all the complaints against Clark is what Jor-El said that nature will find a balance. Are we supposed to take his word as gospel? Is he a God?

Jonathon had a bad heart. Was on his way to see Lionel where his heart was supposed to give way.

Unless Lana was in accident, he is definitely a goner.

From that point, we don't know what will happen. How likely/unlikely is it that he wouldn't have still met with Lionel regardless of the accident.

Jor-El didn't tell Clark that by saving Lana he will be sacrificing another. He just said some mumbo jumbo about how there were 2 travelers and that he can only use the crystal once and nature will find a balance.

Superman790

01-27-2006, 11:22 AM

murder is a little harsh, but I don't think Clark should really be off the hook. Mentally, no matter what anyone says, he will always feel responsible for what happened to Jonathan.

Also, even if Jonathan had died later on of natural causes, Clark still would have some weight on his shoulders. It was because of him using red K that Jonathan made a deal with Jor-El which caused his heart condition in the first place. So no matter what, he would have played some part in his father's death.

Now the reasoning behind Ma Kent's words:

Jonathan wasn't a young man. He had a heart condition and like most of you said he probably would have died soon anyway.

Now think of the kind of person Jonathan is, do you really think he would have it any other way? I am sure he would have willingly given his life for Lana.
1. he knows how much Clark loves her and Bo would do anything to see Clark happy.
2. I think Bo knows that Lana has a full life to live and that for the most part, his life was over. So his character would have told him that letting Lana live would be the right thing to.

I think that Martha realizes this and she knows that JK would have wanted it that way. That is why when Clark blames himself, she tells him that it is not his fault.

Also, just because she said what she did does not mean she is perfectly alright. I am sure in future episodes, there may be a little bitterness between her and Lana and maybe even between her and Clark.

All about Clark

01-27-2006, 12:15 PM

Jonathan was going to die no matter what. Clark saving Lana had repercusions that Clark didn't know would happen. And has anyone seen Lionel back down from whatever intention he had. Lana dying initially only spared Jonathan a few hours. I think Clark was right in that it wasn't Lana's time, it was Jonathans. Jor-el did it to teach Clark to be self-sacrificing. To give up Lana.

Watching Smallville

01-27-2006, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
Jonathan was going to die no matter what. Clark saving Lana had repercusions that Clark didn't know would happen. And has anyone seen Lionel back down from whatever intention he had. Lana dying initially only spared Jonathan a few hours. I think Clark was right in that it wasn't Lana's time, it was Jonathans. Jor-el did it to teach Clark to be self-sacrificing. To give up Lana.
I think you make a good point -- Clark didn't know what would happen. That's what makes his decision so reckless. He didn't care what happened. I wouldn't call him a murderer -- but I just don't know who this guy is.

scoobycookies

01-27-2006, 04:45 PM

Not a murderer but yes immature, selfish and careless. Both Jonathon and Jor-El had lines about thinking things through in this episode. I just hope the lesson sticks this time.

Mr._Action

01-27-2006, 05:02 PM

Maybe Pa was going to die anyway? He would of still had to meet up with Lionel. And with added stress of Clark loosing his fiancé? Then seeing the picture and fighting with Lionel. He probably would have died anyway. So, How can you honestly blame Clark? He did go back and time but still, It's unknown what JK fate was in that timeframe. He may have saved Lana and caused his dead to die but maybe Lana was the exchange? By him saving her, JK became it because he was going to die anyway.

Eh,Man?You-El?

01-27-2006, 05:22 PM

Of course, the question of whether or not Clark's actions led to Jonathan's death will figure VERY heavily in "Vengeance" next week. I am hoping that now that "Nothing will be the same", Clark will look hard and long into the question whether it is EVER a good idea to risk another's life.
Maybe the BDA DID learn sumpin' from "Reckoning".

BTW, Next week, I fully expect a Lex subplot where his approach to "vengeance" is a lot less thoughful and merciful than Clark's.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by sstray72
I wouldn't call him a "murderer," but he is selfish and careless. He was told that somebody else was going to die if he saved Lana. He basically said "Screw that other person, let them die!! I need my Lana!!" There's no arguing this point, it's not Lana bashing, it's a fact. He didn't know who would die, and he ambivalent about it.

You just proved that he IS a murderer w/ that statement... He was told by Jor-El that someone he "loved" would by sacrificed for him -- What does that mean to you??? He disobeyed Jor-El the first time, & set this into motion originally... Then, by sheer stupidity, saves Lana from what would have been an "accidental" death (still caused by his own stubborness to start with) by begging Jor-El to "bring Lana back, it's not her fault"! No you stupid BDA MORON, it's YOUR FAULT!!!!!! This sets up that another that Clark "loves" will be taken -- Logically, this can ONLY be JK or MK ( He doesn't "love" Lois, Chloe, Pete, Lex, Lionel, etc, etc.). What was he thinking? Jor-El (or nature, in this case) was just playing a big practical joke on him??? So he makes his choice (for it not to be Lana) signing another's (in this case Jk's) death warrant. It's malice aforethought either way you slice it, from the moment he didn't return to the FOS before the sun went down. For God's sakes, people, start thinking with your intelligence instead of your emotions!!!! Personally, I think Clark just needs to stab himself w/ a Kryptonite dagger & end ALL of our misery...

liana

01-27-2006, 05:46 PM

He is not a murderer. For someone to be a murderer he have to have the intent to murder this person. He didn't have the intent, he just didn't care less. The only thing he payed attention to was the fact that Lana had died and presented to the choice of someone else to die instead of Lana, he accepted it without really think about it. It is inconsequent, stupid and totally this Clark's way of being. :( Now he will have to live with this choice, seing his mum alone every day and blaming himself for this. He is guilty of being stupid, selfish, self absorbed and reckless. Not of murder.

Watching Smallville

01-27-2006, 06:03 PM

That's criminally negligent homicide. ;)

Seriously, I find it hard to think of him as a murderer. But I have to wonder, what did he think would happen? And, since I think Jonathan would have died anyway, I'm not convinced the trade has been made.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by liana
He is not a murderer. For someone to be a murderer he have to have the intent to murder this person. He didn't have the intent, he just didn't care less. The only thing he payed attention to was the fact that Lana had died and presented to the choice of someone else to die instead of Lana, he accepted it without really think about it. It is inconsequent, stupid and totally this Clark's way of being. :( Now he will have to live with this choice, seing his mum alone every day and blaming himself for this. He is guilty of being stupid, selfish, self absorbed and reckless. Not of murder.

Alright, MANSLAUGHTER then... :mad: He is STILL responsible. It's called negligence, & it is NOT a defense. Guilty as charged.

umm

01-27-2006, 06:11 PM

O.K, people, this murderer thing is realy getting out of hand! Clark was put in an awful position, and no matter which choice he made, someone he loved would have still died, so he is in a losing position no matter what! Either Lana or that other loved one, which in this case proved to be Jonathan!
Secondly, people this is only a show, one which we, the fans have no control over, so there realy isn´t any good cause to get all hot and bothered about it! Take it easy, getting al wind up can´t possibly be good for the health constitution!

shirkie

01-27-2006, 06:15 PM

I agree, Arista. Murderer. Very nauseating.
shirkie

scoobycookies

01-27-2006, 06:21 PM

Some keep using the fact that Jonathon was going to die anyways as a way to somehow excuse or lessen Clark's culpability and that's just wrong.

Whether or not Jonathon was going to die anyway is irrelevant because the universe could have just as easily chosen to have Martha die in place of Lana dying and then a week later Jonathon dies anyway when confronting Lionel.

Saving lana knowing that someone else he loved would die was an immature selfish and careless action. He was just lucky (not that anyone is really lucky in these situations) that the universe was merciful in choosing Jonathon over Martha.

Daphne

01-27-2006, 06:30 PM

Actually, Clark did not ask Joe-El to bring him back from the dead. Jor-El brought him back and then told him that his life would have to be switched with someone he loves. Clark didn't ask for it, nor did he have any control over it.
He is only guilty of not realizing that by saving Lana someone else would die. Something that might happen when one is in the state of grief that Clark was.
This whole Jor-El doing so much when he is actually dead really annoys me.

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Daphne
Actually, Clark did not ask Joe-El to bring him back from the dead. Jor-El brought him back and then told him that his life would have to be switched with someone he loves. Clark didn't ask for it, nor did he have any control over it.
He is only guilty of not realizing that by saving Lana someone else would die. Something that might happen when one is in the state of grief that Clark was.
This whole Jor-El doing so much when he is actually dead really annoys me.
Clark brought that penalty upon himself and consequently his father by disobeying Jor-El. And how can you say Clark didn't realze by saving Lana another loved one would die? That's what he was told by the booming disembodied voice. Was his superhearing on the fritz during that discussion? He obviously heard that the magic phallic crystal would allow him to travel back in time.

I'm quite sure that Clark wasn't thinking clearly. He was frantic and distraught with resulted in a rash decision. However, that's no excuse. He didn't attempt to give his decision a second thought. He mumbled, "Gotta save Lana," without a care for any other.

Originally posted by scoobycookies
Some keep using the fact that Jonathon was going to die anyways as a way to somehow excuse or lessen Clark's culpability and that's just wrong.

Whether or not Jonathon was going to die anyway is irrelevant because the universe could have just as easily chosen to have Martha die in place of Lana dying and then a week later Jonathon dies anyway when confronting Lionel.

Saving lana knowing that someone else he loved would die was an immature selfish and careless action. He was just lucky (not that anyone is really lucky in these situations) that the universe was merciful in choosing Jonathon over Martha.
Agreed.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Daphne
Actually, Clark did not ask Joe-El to bring him back from the
This whole Jor-El doing so much when he is actually dead really annoys me.

However Clark was brought back, he WAS brought back. ALL this again stems back to his refusal to go back to the FOS B4 sunset... Whether this was Kryptonian legend, Gods, pre-destiny, nature, whatever, is of no consequence. He came back due to his sins & is now made to pay for it, by whatever means is in control (yeah, I know, it's Al/Miles). It STILL & ALWAYS WILL boil down to his prior choice of refusing to accept his destiny. BDA Clark... there's just no way to get around it, no matter how you look at it IT IS CLARK'S FAULT all the way. :rolleyes: If not, & he is to shirk responsibility, why not just reverse time to that sunset again & see if Clark goes back to the FOS or remains a Krypto-moron.

superman05

01-27-2006, 06:37 PM

Mod Note - Edited for FLAMING!

mantaray

01-27-2006, 06:42 PM

Clark is in shock and grief. He just lost his beloved fiancee. Now he's holding the key to resurrecting her in his hands. How could he NOT use it???

"Hmm, I have the power to bring Lana back... but I'll just hold on to it for a while..."

And I don't get the whole 'Clark is a murderer' idea.

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by mantaray
Clark is in shock and grief. He just lost his beloved fiancee. Now he's holding the key to resurrecting her in his hands. How could he NOT use it???

"Hmm, I have the power to bring Lana back... but I'll just hold on to it for a while..."

And I don't get the whole 'Clark is a murderer' idea.

Well, I'd think being a future Superhero that Clark would have the brains and morality not to want Lana to live at the expense of someone else's life.

spideyfan

01-27-2006, 06:51 PM

I think this is what makes CK realize he cant take anyones life. This is WHY CK WILL NEVER KILL FROM NOW ON.

THIS IS WHY CK WILL BECOME SUPERMAN!

CK f'ed up, we all know that. Jor-El helped him, yea we got that too. CK went with it when deep down he knew what he was doing. HE WILL NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE TWICE...i hope :)

mantaray

01-27-2006, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by MBCorp
Well, I'd think being a future Superhero that Clark would have the brains and morality not to want Lana to live at the expense of someone else's life.

I don't think he was thinking about that right then. Like I said, shock and grief.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by mantaray
I don't think he was thinking about that right then. Like I said, shock and grief.

So much for Kryptonians being of "superior intelligence"... :p

Iowanmom

01-27-2006, 07:17 PM

You know, I sit here reading these replies and I honestly try to see both sides of the arguement. After watching the episode again and again, I just can not support the statement that Clark Kent is a murderer in ANY way.

The most devastating decisions we as 'humans' can make are ones in the moment of complete and utter depspair. This is what makes Clark human. This is what makes him Johnathan Kent's son and NOT Jor-EL's.

His hands still tarnished with her blood, his eyes still pooling from visions of the lifeless and battered face that was his soulmate, Clark can only think to save her. In any way. In this moment. This time of heartwrenching pain and desperate 'need' to help her. His mind was beseiged by sorrow in not being able to protect her, knowing this was not her intended fate. But a fate that had been changed because of the constant battle of wills with Jor-EL.

Not only had he lost the love of his life, but he felt responsible for the death. Clark will always feel responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Not merely because his life 'force' was returnded to him, but because of who he is, where he came from and the destruction and devestation that ensumed with his arrival. There is no other reaction when Jor-EL makes him face unbelievable trials that would cripple a normal human man, forcing him against his will to make decisions no mortal will have to.

Because he risked everything, makes him a hero. Because he pleaded for a life to be returned, makes him a hero. But mostly, because his is willing to go against all odds and do anything in his power to help those he loves and doesn't love, to the best of his ability with any and all oportunities he posesses, he is a hero.

Hindsight is 20/20. Jor-EL said fate will find a way. He isn't Superman. He could only try to save who was in need by any means he could.

jaime,oburg

01-27-2006, 07:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sstray72
I wouldn't call him a "murderer," but he is selfish and careless. He was told that somebody else was going to die if he saved Lana. He basically said "Screw that other person, let them die!! I need my Lana!!" There's no arguing this point, it's not Lana bashing, it's a fact. He didn't know who would die, and he ambivalent about it. [/QUOTE

Agreed. I felt like Clark was saying screw whoever it has to be to rectify the situation. As long as I have my Lana. Very unsuperman like. Yes, I know Clark isn't Supes yet, but as soon as he gets these Lana blinders off he can start acting more like the man his father would want him to become.:mad:

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 07:23 PM

Because he risked everything, makes him a hero. Because he pleaded for a life to be returned, makes him a hero. But mostly, because his is willing to go against all odds and do anything in his power to help those he loves and doesn't love, to the best of his ability with any and all oportunities he posesses, he is a hero.

Was he a hero when he totally ignored Jor-El's warnings about someone else dying in Lana's place?

PeteM

01-27-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by jaime,oburg
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sstray72
I wouldn't call him a "murderer," but he is selfish and careless. He was told that somebody else was going to die if he saved Lana. He basically said "Screw that other person, let them die!! I need my Lana!!" There's no arguing this point, it's not Lana bashing, it's a fact. He didn't know who would die, and he ambivalent about it. [/QUOTE

Agreed. I felt like Clark was saying screw whoever it has to be to rectify the situation. As long as I have my Lana. Very unsuperman like. Yes, I know Clark isn't Supes yet, but as soon as he gets these Lana blinders off he can start acting more like the man his father would want him to become.:mad:

Clark is stupid for alot of things in this episode but many of you are condemning him for what everyone would have done.

Somebody you love dies . . . you have the abiltiy to save that person's life at the risk of somebody else's life.

Who amongst us would have not taken that choice? It was not like he knew that Jonathon's life was at stake.

Anybody who claims that they would let their love one die because they did not want to risk the life of someone else is lying to themselves.

clob

01-27-2006, 07:35 PM

The things goes very hard for Clark, he risks everything for Lana no matter what with the idea that he could save the other one because the most clear thing it's that Clark has a bad time accepting that he just cant save everyone, of course for his decision is JK dead but I agree with Iowamom he really doesn't use his brain just his heart.

Iowanmom

01-27-2006, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by MBCorp
Was he a hero when he totally ignored Jor-El's warnings about someone else dying in Lana's place?
He is a young man devastated by loss and guilt. Doing what he can, ANYTHING he can to save Lana. The one that needs him most. How many of us would do the same?

I know I won't change minds. It would be foolish to try. But I needed to speak my peace and defend CK against such a horrible idea of calling him a murderer.

Old Juan

01-27-2006, 07:48 PM

Murder implies malicious intent and premeditation. Neither of which Clark had. He was simply being extremely selfish.

Was he a hero when he totally ignored Jor-El's warnings about someone else dying in Lana's place?

Yep, this is the biggest problem. Jor-El warns Clark that nature will find a way to balance it out if he saves Lana. So Clark knows that even if he can save Lana someone elses he cares about will die in her place because her death was the original payment for Clark's ressurection. By Clark taking that crystal without any hesitation and using it to go back and save Lana he knowingly was condemning someone else to death. There's no getting around that and no amount of romanticising his love for Lana is going to change that Clark was wrong to make the decision that Lana's life was more valuable then anybody elses.

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
So much for Kryptonians being of "superior intelligence"... :p

well, clark had to endure the kansas public school system. not his fault for being a little slow. Oh my...that was a little too much even for me. :o

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Old Juan
Murder implies malicious intent and premeditation. Neither of which Clark had. He was simply being extremely selfish.
I think disregarded the knowlege that someone else would die displays malicious intent. Imagine, you're on that 70's game show where you trade and choose doors. (I forget the name.) Well, Jor-El offered Clark two opitions, essentially, two doors. (Though, Clark knew was behind them.) Behind door number was Jonthan, alive, trapped in a guillotine. The second is Lana's lifeless body with a phallic crystal hovering above her. Ultimately, Clark said, "Off with his head!"

Hugo

01-27-2006, 08:02 PM

I believe that Clark is not a murderer, the JOR-EL AI in the FOS is the real murderer. The AI said that Kryptotains are not gods, could have fooled me. Since the AI was first introduced it has done else but GOD with any and all aspects of Clark's life. JOR-EL is responsible for Lana's death in Timeline 1 and Mr. Kent's death in Timeline 2. In the very beginning of Season 5 there is a clear indication that the AI thinks it's god, when the AI brings Clark back from the dead. If the Jor-el AI didn't play God, to prove that point it sould have let Clark die. The fact that itdidn't proves my point, that it thinks it's GOD. Also it was the AI's idea to trade Clark's life for the life of someone who he loves. The AI could have chosen to punish Clark any number of ways for chosing to give up his powers and be human. The AI from the very begining has hated Mr. Kent and since Season 5 it's hated Lana because Clark choose to be human and give up his powers to be with her. The JOR-EL AI would do anything in it's power to take the lives of Mr. Kent and Lana. It see's them as bug's to swashed. To qoute the Godfather "It's time to go to the matresses." (sp) Clark has to stand up againest Jor-el and wage war againest him so Mr. Kent's death is not in vein.

Hugo.

Daphne

01-27-2006, 08:04 PM

Boy I need to think this one out, I was pretty sure that Clark was mortal and done with Jor-El when he got shot. How was he to know that Jor-El was going to grab him and exchange his life for someone he loves? How did Clark get to the FOS from the hospital? I can not remember. I almost wonder if I am missing an episode or something.

PeteM

01-27-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Old Juan
Murder implies malicious intent and premeditation. Neither of which Clark had. He was simply being extremely selfish.

Yep, this is the biggest problem. Jor-El warns Clark that nature will find a way to balance it out if he saves Lana. So Clark knows that even if he can save Lana someone elses he cares about will die in her place because her death was the original payment for Clark's ressurection. By Clark taking that crystal without any hesitation and using it to go back and save Lana he knowingly was condemning someone else to death. There's no getting around that and no amount of romanticising his love for Lana is going to change that Clark was wrong to make the decision that Lana's life was more valuable then anybody elses.

If you were given a choice to save the life of your wife, girlfriend, or somebody you loved at the risk of somebody's else life, are you telling me you wouldn't save them. He wasn't given the choice of Lana or Jonathon. He was told someone else may die.

Given that choice, I would do the same and I'm thinking so would anyone else.

Mod Note - Edited for profanity.

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by PeteM
If you were given a choice to save the life of your wife, girlfriend, or somebody you loved at the risk of somebody's else life, are you telling me you wouldn't save them. He wasn't given the choice of Lana or Jonathon. He was told someone else may die.

Given that choice, I would do the same and I'm thinking so would anyone else.
What did Jonathan mumble to Clark, while holding him back? "There was nothing you could have done. Nothing." The moment for Clark to swoop in and save Lana had passed. The girl was DEAD already.

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by PeteM
If you were given a choice to save the life of your wife, girlfriend, or somebody you loved at the risk of somebody's else life, are you telling me you wouldn't save them. He wasn't given the choice of Lana or Jonathon. He was told someone else may die.

Given that choice, I would do the same and I'm thinking so would anyone else.

Mod Note - Edited for profanity.

Clark should be above your average person. He is supposedly going to become one of the world's greatest superheroes one day. He shouldn't be so selfish as to willingly let another die so that his girlfriend can live. And I'll just say that I personally wouldn't condemn another person to death just so someone that I loved would live. I hope anyway that I wouldn't be that greedy and selfish.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 08:16 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeteM
[B]Given that choice, I would do the same and I'm thinking so would anyone else.

It just shows Clark's selfishness. It just shows Clark making judgements based on his own desires and NOT looking at the bigger picture of things. Clark is NOT ready to become Superman. Not until he relinqishes his Mortal weakness and quits being Supermoron.

:mad: :( :mad: :( :mad:

Old Juan

01-27-2006, 08:43 PM

If you were given a choice to save the life of your wife, girlfriend, or somebody you loved at the risk of somebody's else life, are you telling me you wouldn't save them. He wasn't given the choice of Lana or Jonathon. He was told someone else may die.

Given that choice, I would do the same and I'm thinking so would anyone else.

But it was already too late for Lana at that point. She was already dead and given how it played out there was nothing Clark could have done to prevent it at the time. Lana was the payment for Clark's ressurection. So Clark begs Jor-El for a chance to go back and save Lana. Jor-El grants him the opportunity but warns Clark that if he does manage to save Lana, someone else as in one the remaining people he cares about will end up dying in her place. The payment has to be made whether its Lana, Chloe, Jonathan, or Martha. CLARK KNEW THIS, and still knew it when he made the decision to go back to save Lana. Clark had no choice in the matter when Lana originally died but he did have the choice the second time around, he chose to let someone else die in Lana's place.

KrissO

01-27-2006, 09:01 PM

Wow I still can't believe that people offend Clark's action so much. Murdered ? Oh dear.
All he thought about was Lana, because SHE was the one that was dead at THAT moment and no one else!

Just put yourself in the same situation. Yes, because fact is, you're no more human than Clark in your brain. Clark did perhaps not act like a future superhero. But Clark has never asked to become one either. He wants to be normal like everyone else and he also acted like everyone else would have.

Clark acted on his feelings. It's much easier asking to get a life of a specific person back and sacrice the life of someone else you love. No one will think straight in that situation, neither did Clark because he thinks just like humans.

Clark never asked for anything of this to happen.

Imagine if Lana had died. I bet Clark would have gone wild on red k the rest of his life.

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 09:12 PM

Clark did perhaps not act like a future superhero. But Clark has never asked to become one either. He wants to be normal like everyone else and he also acted like everyone else would have.

You're 100% correct about this. Clark doesn't want to become a hero, he only wants to be normal. So he's not a hero. Clark is not a hero and his actions are the same as any (extremely selfish and thoughless) average everyday person's would be. So yeah, I agree. Clark isn't a hero so we probably shouldn't expect him to act in a heroic manner. He's just like any normal everyday joe.

Imagine if Lana had died. I bet Clark would have gone wild on red k the rest of his life.

I agree with this too. Clark is still so immature and thoughtless that he probably would have spent the rest of his life high on Redk.

PETER WEST

01-27-2006, 09:18 PM

Clark Is A Murderer

I agree Clark is completely responsible for Jonathan's death. But he's not a Murderer.

Clark is like Peter Parker, Parker was Responsible for His Uncle Ben's Death, Because "He Choose" To let a Theif get away, Instead of Stoping him When He had The chance .

Clark could've left everything the way it was. But "He Choose " Not to .

gamer2

01-27-2006, 09:31 PM

The choices we make and the outcome of those choices are what make us the people we become. Superman could not be superman without having "super lessons". (cheesy I know) But point being I would not want a superman that had never made a wrong choice. If you are going to have the fates of millions in your hands you had better have had lessons powerful enough in your life to teach you how to handle them.

Arista 07

01-27-2006, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by PETER WEST
I agree Clark is completely responsible for Jonathan's death. But he's not a Murderer.

Clark is like Peter Parker, Parker was Responsible for His Uncle Ben's Death, Because "He Choose" To let a Theif get away, Instead of Stoping him When He had The chance .

Clark could've left everything the way it was. But "He Choose " Not to .
I don't think those two instances are compatible. Peter Parker merely allowed a thief to get away. He was not aware that his lack of action would result in death. Whereas, Clark *acted*, in spite of knowing those actions would result in death. I can understand why Peter Parker felt guilty in regard to Uncle Ben's death. However, at that time, he wasn't Spiderman or an officer. He was not obligated to stop that thief; therefore, he did nothing. If anything, Peter was indirectly responsible for his death. However, Clark acted and was *directly* responsible for Jonathan's death.

MBCorp

01-27-2006, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by gamer2
The choices we make and the outcome of those choices are what make us the people we become. Superman could not be superman without having "super lessons". (cheesy I know) But point being I would not want a superman that had never made a wrong choice. If you are going to have the fates of millions in your hands you had better have had lessons powerful enough in your life to teach you how to handle them.

It depends on how many wrong choices you make. We've had five years of Clark making one wrong stupid decision after another and inadvertently causing harm to the people around him. If he hasn't learned his "super lessons" in five years then I'm not sure if he'll ever learn them.

bkzcici

01-27-2006, 09:37 PM

I don't think a guy who was just engaged and lost his fiancee has has time to stay calm and think everything through. The only thing that was running in Clark's head was "LANA DIED. I LOVE HER. I HAVE TO SAVE HER." not "WAIT IF I SAVE LANA, WHO WILL DIE?"

gamer2

01-27-2006, 09:38 PM

One more thought. Whether you like it or not. If my wife died (yes I'm married) and I had the chance to get her back I'd take it. And i wouldn't blame anybody for making the same choice.
Also I don't think you can learn these lessons in only five years. This whole series is about the path to superman if he knows everything needed to be superman the series would be over.

tejdog1

01-27-2006, 10:11 PM

Not murder, but like some people have said, it's criminally negligent (sp?) homicide. He was emotionally distraught, yes. Unstable, yes. Thinking rashly, yes. Listening as Jor-El said that nature would still require balancing? YES HE WAS. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. He *knew* that saving Lana = the death of someone else he loved: Chloe, Martha, Jonathan, Lois. He said in his head, I DO NOT CARE if any of those four die, because I want my Lana. Guilty of negligent homicide. Next case.

jmf1

01-27-2006, 10:30 PM

I don't remember Jor-el telling Clark that if he didn't return by sundown that if he ever died in his mortal life he'd be too important to let die and that someone's life close to him would be exchanged. Jor-el just made him promise to come back before sundown; didn't tell him the consequences so how can we accuse Clark of being a murderer? That's harsh. Maybe naive for not recognizing that he needed to ask Jor-el more questions because you never get something for nothing with these Kryptonians. However, Clark was more concerned about getting out of the FOS to save Chloe from freezing.

If he's guilty of anything; he's guilty of being a teenager and not thinking through things like an adult. However, there are too many adults out in the world that don't act much better than teenagers. The only one that's been acting with real maturity these days is Lois. She kind of likes Clark but gave Lana some really good sincere, heart felt advice.

aqua

01-27-2006, 10:35 PM

I believe Clark's a murderer.

People keep bringing up, "Oh, doctors save many lives but they can't save them all." So, you really think a doctor would say, "Hrm, I really, really like this patient but they need a heart to live. Find some random person and kill them so this patient will survive." No. That is murder. Whether or not you're saving a life, you're also taking one.

Even if you don't think he's a murderer, all this goes way back to the first episode of the season. When faced with going back to Jor-El at sunset or not, he decided against it. He knew there would be consequences and decided anyway to do it. Then when he got shot and resurrected he was warned he took a life because of his behavior. Not only did his inability to listen to Jor-El lose him his powers, but cost Lana her life (since, technically, she was the one whose life was exchanged. Then her life was exchanged for Jonathan's.)

Clark's actions was inexcusable. He has extraordinary powers and tried to play God selfishly. That isn't the makings of a superhero.

BoSoxJim

01-27-2006, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by aqua
I believe Clark's a murderer.

People keep bringing up, "Oh, doctors save many lives but they can't save them all." So, you really think a doctor would say, "Hrm, I really, really like this patient but they need a heart to live. Find some random person and kill them so this patient will survive." No. That is murder. Whether or not you're saving a life, you're also taking one.

well i hope you weren;t referring to my post because i gave a scenario and it was nothing like that.

ok, say you are an emergency room doctor. two critically injured patients arrive at the same time. you have to choose one patient to work on and the other has to wait (actually 24 ran a similar scenario last season).

just as you finish up one patient, the other dies. are you a murderer? you chose one life over another with the intention of saving both.

murder means you wanted to kill someone. clark thought he had a chance to save everyone. he was wrong. that does not make him a murderer.

if people think clark is a murderer and is such a horrible person then stop watching the show. problem solved.

hbkid21

01-27-2006, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by tejdog1
Not murder, but like some people have said, it's criminally negligent (sp?) homicide. He was emotionally distraught, yes. Unstable, yes. Thinking rashly, yes. Listening as Jor-El said that nature would still require balancing? YES HE WAS. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING. He *knew* that saving Lana = the death of someone else he loved: Chloe, Martha, Jonathan, Lois. He said in his head, I DO NOT CARE if any of those four die, because I want my Lana. Guilty of negligent homicide. Next case.

Well I just watch the ep again and this is how I kinda see it now. Lana dies, Clark pleads with big daddy joe that this is not her destiny and that he thinks he killed her because he told her his secret.....Jor-el then says nature would require balance. Seeing what Clark does after that, I believe he thinks Jor-El life exchange was Lana. I don't think he truly realizes anyone can die until he saw Lois on the floor. I think Clark was thinking he was after Lana and Lana only. Jor-El did said nature have to balance itself but by that I think Clark was thinking he was after Lana again. Not John or Martha or anyone else. That my theory tho.

vikingjedi

01-28-2006, 06:09 AM

I think Jor-El is to blame. He's the one that killed Lana in the first place just because Clark disobeyed him. Im really hoping that this isn't the real Jor-El because whoever did this is an evil murderer.

jmf1

01-28-2006, 06:18 AM

Clark didn't ask that Jor-el bring him back to life so that someone else's life would be exchanged for his. In fact, he said just the opposite. If you have to exchange my life with someone elses, then don't bring me back. But, Jor-el told him it was too late. I think with murder there has to be "intent." I'm not a lawyer but I can't believe our legal system would convict Clark of anything let alone murder. He didn't know exactly what would happen. Only that there would be consequences.

smallville_fantic_uk

01-28-2006, 06:21 AM

He's not a murderer. If you had just lost that one person who you loved more than anything in the world and hadn't had time for it to all sink in and then you were told you could have them back wouldn't you do it?

If he'd have had the chance to sit and think of the consquences maybe he wouldn't have done it but in that split second he knew he could the woman he loved back. I don't think he's a muderer at all just someone doing what any human would to try and get back someone they loved dearly and I think over the next few episodes we'll see him trying to come to terms with his decision

KrissO

01-28-2006, 06:37 AM

Lots of good comments here by smallville_fantic_uk jmf1 vikingjedi hbkid21 BoSoxJim.
I agree on most points.

I guess Clark shouldn't have been resurrected at all.
Maybe that would make everyone happy.

Superboy2

01-28-2006, 06:43 AM

Clark thought that Jor-El gave him a chance to save Lana, and nobody else would be hurt. Yeah, he should have looked more into it, but that would it real life and not a show. I still wish TPTB would have waited till the season finale, but since there may not be a sixth season(ratings could go down, but hopefully not) they want to show Clark dealing with the death, if there was no 6th. I was hoping Clark would tell Lana again, but I figured that wouldn't have happened.

KrissO

01-28-2006, 09:55 AM

Doubt he will tell now either. But let's hope he does after things have settled down a little after Jonathan's death...

aqua

01-28-2006, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
well i hope you weren;t referring to my post because i gave a scenario and it was nothing like that.

ok, say you are an emergency room doctor. two critically injured patients arrive at the same time. you have to choose one patient to work on and the other has to wait (actually 24 ran a similar scenario last season).

just as you finish up one patient, the other dies. are you a murderer? you chose one life over another with the intention of saving both.

murder means you wanted to kill someone. clark thought he had a chance to save everyone. he was wrong. that does not make him a murderer.

if people think clark is a murderer and is such a horrible person then stop watching the show. problem solved.

Against the rules to tell someone to stop watching the show.

But Clark didn't try to save the person who would be sacrificed for Lana. He knew that someone would and didn't care. His intention was to save Lana, without caring that another life would be sacrificed.

SteveS

01-28-2006, 12:51 PM

"He's not a murderer. If you had just lost that one person who you loved more than anything in the world and hadn't had time for it to all sink in and then you were told you could have them back wouldn't you do it?

If he'd have had the chance to sit and think of the consquences maybe he wouldn't have done it but in that split second he knew he could the woman he loved back. I don't think he's a muderer at all just someone doing what any human would to try and get back someone they loved dearly and I think over the next few episodes we'll see him trying to come to terms with his decision
"

Good thinking. ClarkMan made a poor judgement in a highly emotional state, but that does not make him a murderor.

Naomi

01-28-2006, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Superboy2
Clark thought that Jor-El gave him a chance to save Lana, and nobody else would be hurt.
Jor-El did warn Clark, at the very time Clark was asking for Lana's death to be reversed, that actions have consequences and a balance will follow.

Clark was striving to keep Lana safe in the second timeline still, but only because she was the death he saw in the first timeline and he knew how to prevent that. He couldn't foresee Jonathon's death, and by then there was no crystal to change events for Jonathon and keep an eye on him

"The tide of fate is impossible to stop. Even if you are able to alter one course of events, the universe will find a balance."

Xcalibur

01-28-2006, 01:58 PM

watcher4

01-28-2006, 02:10 PM

IMHO, many people had a part in Jonathan's death-Clark, Lana, Lionel, Lex and Jonathan himself. I am not meaning to say that any particular person "pulled the trigger" so to speak. However, Clark did make a choice. Choices have consequences. A person should learn to be responsible for the choices they make. This is a hard lesson to learn. Hopefully, TPTB will explore this with Clark so that Clark can become the man that he was destined to be. Even if it did happen in Superman mythos, etc, it is still really sad that it would have to take the death of his father to teach Clark such a vital lesson.

MBCorp

01-28-2006, 02:15 PM

I just hope that they don't have Clark shifting blame for JK's death in the next episode. He has a bad history of ignoring his own bad actions and shifting blame onto others. If he starts *****ing about how Lex killed JK then I'm going to be seriously pissed.

hickorylane

01-28-2006, 06:18 PM

I am surprised how badly received this episode has been taken across the net. People didn't like it, or the message. It really wasn't that special, just kind of same old, same old, in a prettier package. Too bad really

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by hickorylane
I am surprised how badly received this episode has been taken across the net. People didn't like it, or the message. It really wasn't that special, just kind of same old, same old, in a prettier package. Too bad really

Yes... this show & these characters deserve way better than this. Don't expect much improvement, but we can always hope.

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by aqua
Against the rules to tell someone to stop watching the show.

But Clark didn't try to save the person who would be sacrificed for Lana. He knew that someone would and didn't care. His intention was to save Lana, without caring that another life would be sacrificed.

my bad on the rules violation :( (my second one) but i just wondering why someone would watch a show where they thought the main character was a homicidal maniac (unless they like murderers).

why do you think he didn't care if someone else died?

this is why this show needed at least two parts to tell. they needed to focus on what clark was goign through and what he was thinking when he made the choice to save lana.

TPsTB really screwed up if so many people believe Clark is an uncaring murderer and lex is a really good guy who needs to be sympathized.

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim

TPsTB really screwed up if so many people believe Clark is an uncaring murderer and lex is a really good guy who needs to be sympathized.

I know I'm re-hashing old info here... but the point is, when Clark FIRST disobeyed Jor-El's (or his energy's) command to return to the FOS before sundown (I forget the ep title - someone help me out here) is when he becomes "responsible" for "A" death (not necessarily JK's). It is homicide caused by negligence in Legal terms... not intended as a murder, but death results anyway because of the action taken (if he had gone to the FOS - no death). It is still w/ malice aforethought because he was warned by Jor-El there would be hell to pay if he disobeyed, which he did by taking Lana (again, sigh, it's Lana) to the hospital, when she clearly was not mortally wounded (doesn't this guy know when to call am ambulance?). So in that respect, yes, in a way he is a murderer. On top of that, (again, I can't recall the title of the ep), JK is forced to go to Jor-El to get Kal-El back (he has on the Red Kryptonite ring in Metropolis) & in the transfer of powers, JK's heart is severely weakened (he was as healthy as an ox before). Again, Clark made the conscious decision to take the ring out of Chloe's desk at the Torch & put it on to escape his destiny & reality (which it did not do). So even JK's heart condition is again laid at Clark's doorstep. Not even the great Perry Mason could get him out of this one. And it's not Jor-El's fault like many have said either. There are prophecies, and when Clark goes against them, he must pay the consequences. Even w/ the guilt over his father's death, he has still not fully redeemed himself for his actions. Sorry to be so windy, but it is too important a subject to gloss over. Thank you for your time. ;) :p

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 06:57 PM

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim

but even with all of your valid points, it does not point to clark being an uncaring murderer which most of the people in this thread think he is.

as for redeeming himself, i think preventing a nuclear catastrophe should earn him a couple points at least and i think he's done a couple of other small things here and there :p

plus jk was not forced to go to jor-el to ket clark back. he just wasn't smart enough to think of making a kryptonite tipped weapon that wouldn't mortally wound him but weaken him enough to get the red kryptonite off him. :D

As to point 1 -- OK, not uncaring, but indifferent. Still responsible.

As to point 2 -- That's his destiny, & even subconsciously he can't avoid it (except when Pinkie is around).

As to point 3 -- NOBODY thinks things out on this show (not even Al/Miles)

Needless to say, we're on the same train, just riding in different cars. ;) :p :D

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el

Needless to say, we're on the same train, just riding in different cars. ;) :p :D

it always seems i'm stuck in the caboose though. :(

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
it always seems i'm stuck in the caboose though. :(

OMG!!! :eek: We ARE on the same car!!!! :eek:

aqua

01-28-2006, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
my bad on the rules violation :( (my second one) but i just wondering why someone would watch a show where they thought the main character was a homicidal maniac (unless they like murderers).

why do you think he didn't care if someone else died?

this is why this show needed at least two parts to tell. they needed to focus on what clark was goign through and what he was thinking when he made the choice to save lana.

TPsTB really screwed up if so many people believe Clark is an uncaring murderer and lex is a really good guy who needs to be sympathized.

Heh, it's okay.

Because when told that another life would be taken, he didn't think about it. He didn't consider it. He just said he'd take that option.

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
OMG!!! :eek: We ARE on the same car!!!! :eek:

then you better watch out as i tend to get a bit grabby after i have a few. ;)

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
then you better watch out as i tend to get a bit grabby after i have a few. ;)

:eek: *runs toward front of train* Kidding aside, you still have to place SOME blame on Clark for putting this whole deal into motion... WAIT!!! It's Al/Miles fault!!!!!! Get the nooses!!!!!!:D

* forms lynch mob *

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
:eek: *runs toward front of train* Kidding aside, you still have to place SOME blame on Clark for putting this whole deal into motion... WAIT!!! It's Al/Miles fault!!!!!! Get the nooses!!!!!!:D

* forms lynch mob *

the way they have written the stories, yes, clark does have to assume alot of the responsibilty for what happened.

i wish joss whedon or ron moore had done this show. :(

Nerial

01-28-2006, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
I know I'm re-hashing old info here... but the point is, when Clark FIRST disobeyed Jor-El's (or his energy's) command to return to the FOS before sundown (I forget the ep title - someone help me out here) is when he becomes "responsible" for "A" death (not necessarily JK's). It is homicide caused by negligence in Legal terms... not intended as a murder, but death results anyway because of the action taken (if he had gone to the FOS - no death). It is still w/ malice aforethought because he was warned by Jor-El there would be hell to pay if he disobeyed, which he did by taking Lana (again, sigh, it's Lana) to the hospital, when she clearly was not mortally wounded (doesn't this guy know when to call am ambulance?). So in that respect, yes, in a way he is a murderer. On top of that, (again, I can't recall the title of the ep), JK is forced to go to Jor-El to get Kal-El back (he has on the Red Kryptonite ring in Metropolis) & in the transfer of powers, JK's heart is severely weakened (he was as healthy as an ox before). Again, Clark made the conscious decision to take the ring out of Chloe's desk at the Torch & put it on to escape his destiny & reality (which it did not do). So even JK's heart condition is again laid at Clark's doorstep. Not even the great Perry Mason could get him out of this one. And it's not Jor-El's fault like many have said either. There are prophecies, and when Clark goes against them, he must pay the consequences. Even w/ the guilt over his father's death, he has still not fully redeemed himself for his actions. Sorry to be so windy, but it is too important a subject to gloss over. Thank you for your time. ;) :p

I do have to say I disagree with you, although I believe you do have some points.

To be honest, I'm sick of Clark being put into these no-win situations where he gets the shaft no matter what decision he makes.

Here's my examples:

1) End of Season 2: Clark's been ordered by Jor-El to leave everything he loves, and even gets a terrible burn on his chest. His reaction--he destroys the ship, and (just by some really bad luck), the blast manages to hit his parents who he didn't realize were in close proximity.

So, right there--Clark's actions cause the death of his would-be sibling.

2) In reaction, he runs away to Metropolis. He steals...a lot. He's on drugs (red-K). Nonetheless, Jonathon makes the decision to go after him. Jonathon did what any good parent would do, but it was still his choice.

I will say, however, that Clark was the reason Jonathon made that decision.

3) The episode, Arrival. I will have to disagree with you on this one for two reasons:

A) Clark didn't know what would happen if he didn't return. Since Jor-El seems keen on burning symbols on his son's chest when he disobeys him, perhaps Clark believed any punishment was on him and no one else. So, calling Clark a murderer when he didn't even know what Jor-El was talking about, is kinda unfair.

B) Once again, this is a no-win situation. If Clark hadn't stopped the two Kryptonians from trashing Smallville, wouldn't he be to blame for THOSE deaths since he is the only one capable of stopping them? His only fault was staying by Lana for five seconds in Lex's mansion as the sun set. He didn't even get a chance to take her to a hospital--his powers were already gone by that point.

4) Episode, Hidden. Life exchanged for Clark's. AGAIN, no-win. If he didn't go back, Smallville would have been destroyed, (his parents and friends included). And the reason he was shot in the first place was because he was trying to STOP the person who had the bomb.

5) Now, we're to, Reckoning. Hopefully, this will be the LAST of these stinkin' no-wins, because, frankly, I'm sick of this. Jor-El's, "life had a balance" prophecy is coming true, and Clark gets the shaft. Knowing that he could prevent Lana's death, he would be a murderer for doing nothing, or be a murderer for going back to stop it. I'm not saying he made the correct decision, because when it comes down to choosing one life over another, no one should be put into that position, but neither option would have pretty results.

Honestly, I have defended Smallville, and most of the times with extreme sincerity. I love Clark's character, and feel so bad for him when he gets burned. But, this no-win crap--it's got to end.

While I don't agree with you, I do understand where you're coming from, and THAT is probably the worst of it.

No one should even be considering that Clark is to blame for his father's (or anyone else's) death. No one should be even thinking in the slightest that he's a murderer. Unfortunately, his character is being pulled down a tunnel, and by the time he climbs out, he's going to be a mutated version of Peter Parker and Batman mixed. Blaming themselves for their loved one's death, and extremely bitter about it.

AngylWylde

01-28-2006, 11:25 PM

I totally agree with you Arista_07. Well Clark killed his baby sibling and now his dad - Martha needs to watch out. And Chloe too. I think he would sacrifice anyone or anything for Lana. It's really obsessive and disturbing. And people say Lex is obsessive about things...

(Really though, I know this just harkens back to TPTB sick love for Lana/KK - so they make every character willing to worship and sacrifice anything for Lana. I wonder if TPTB obsession is worth this.)

OutlawAngel

01-28-2006, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by scoobycookies
LOL :lol: Now looking back on the Arrival Episode, I wonder if Lana was meant to die in Lex's office there too, if Clark had just left her there to go to the FOS like he was supposed to. Seems like fate has always wanted pinky dead. Fate got fed up with Clark intervening so much, that Fate decided to pwn him. Too bad it had to be JK who suffered the consequences. :(

edited: even in Lexmas, lana dies :eek: Fate my new best friend lol

Oh my gosh I nearly lost a whole can of Pepsi on that last line. Thank you so much I needed that laugh :lol:

RedDwarfette

01-28-2006, 11:39 PM

Clark's sheer indifference to the consequences of his actions are truly baffling. While I wouldn't go as far as to call him a murderer, I would definitely say that he is partly responsible for the death of Jonathan. No amount of grief/love justifies resurrecting a dead person just to put another loved one six feet underground in their place. The argument that Jonathan was going to die anyway doesn't fly either. Clark should not have the power of life and death [in terms of choosing who lives and not caring who dies]. These sure ain't the actions of a hero :(

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Nerial
I do have to say I disagree with you, although I believe you do have some points.

To be honest, I'm sick of Clark being put into these no-win situations where he gets the shaft no matter what decision he makes.

Here's my examples:

1) End of Season 2: Clark's been ordered by Jor-El to leave everything he loves, and even gets a terrible burn on his chest. His reaction--he destroys the ship, and (just by some really bad luck), the blast manages to hit his parents who he didn't realize were in close proximity.

So, right there--Clark's actions cause the death of his would-be sibling.

2) In reaction, he runs away to Metropolis. He steals...a lot. He's on drugs (red-K). Nonetheless, Jonathon makes the decision to go after him. Jonathon did what any good parent would do, but it was still his choice.

I will say, however, that Clark was the reason Jonathon made that decision.

3) The episode, Arrival. I will have to disagree with you on this one for two reasons:

A) Clark didn't know what would happen if he didn't return. Since Jor-El seems keen on burning symbols on his son's chest when he disobeys him, perhaps Clark believed any punishment was on him and no one else. So, calling Clark a murderer when he didn't even know what Jor-El was talking about, is kinda unfair.

B) Once again, this is a no-win situation. If Clark hadn't stopped the two Kryptonians from trashing Smallville, wouldn't he be to blame for THOSE deaths since he is the only one capable of stopping them? His only fault was staying by Lana for five seconds in Lex's mansion as the sun set. He didn't even get a chance to take her to a hospital--his powers were already gone by that point.

4) Episode, Hidden. Life exchanged for Clark's. AGAIN, no-win. If he didn't go back, Smallville would have been destroyed, (his parents and friends included). And the reason he was shot in the first place was because he was trying to STOP the person who had the bomb.

5) Now, we're to, Reckoning. Hopefully, this will be the LAST of these stinkin' no-wins, because, frankly, I'm sick of this. Jor-El's, "life had a balance" prophecy is coming true, and Clark gets the shaft. Knowing that he could prevent Lana's death, he would be a murderer for doing nothing, or be a murderer for going back to stop it. I'm not saying he made the correct decision, because when it comes down to choosing one life over another, no one should be put into that position, but neither option would have pretty results.

Honestly, I have defended Smallville, and most of the times with extreme sincerity. I love Clark's character, and feel so bad for him when he gets burned. But, this no-win crap--it's got to end.

While I don't agree with you, I do understand where you're coming from, and THAT is probably the worst of it.

No one should even be considering that Clark is to blame for his father's (or anyone else's) death. No one should be even thinking in the slightest that he's a murderer. Unfortunately, his character is being pulled down a tunnel, and by the time he climbs out, he's going to be a mutated version of Peter Parker and Batman mixed. Blaming themselves for their loved one's death, and extremely bitter about it.

Points well made as well, Kudos. But I think the ultimate blame here goes to an uncreative writing staff that doesn't know continuity from a (plot)hole in the ground... The story arc from season-season and (even worse) ep-ep has been so inconsistent that it's no wonder Clark can't win. Yes, as a writer your job is to keep the hero (protagonist) in jeopardy or turmoil, but sadly this interpretation has Clark looking like a bumbling, confused fool. How are we supposed to like & get behind his character? His obsession over a prudish ex pom-pom girl & refusal to accept his destiny (no matter how many times Jor-El whacks him upside the head w/ a Kryptonian brick) has dragged out about as far as it can w/o completely boring us to 'death' (excepting the demographic that goes "googly eyes" for him no matter what kind of buffoonish behavior the writers offer up). Isn't it time Clark is made into someone we can cheer for? I can't bring myself to cheer for this whiny, depressed, pity party (don't send me an invitation, please) adaption of the legend we all know & love. It wouldn't surprise me if Lex (homicidal egomaniac that he is) has more of a following than this "jellyfish" version of Clark Kent. We as fans deserve a true hero, and so far, this CK just hasn't cut the mustard. NOT AT ALL. I can only hope some of our voices are reverberrating in TPTB's heads... for creativity's sake.

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
Points well made as well, Kudos. But I think the ultimate blame here goes to an uncreative writing staff that doesn't know continuity from a (plot)hole in the ground... The story arc from season-season and (even worse) ep-ep has been so inconsistent that it's no wonder Clark can't win. Yes, as a writer your job is to keep the hero (protagonist) in jeopardy or turmoil, but sadly this interpretation has Clark looking like a bumbling, confused fool. How are we supposed to like & get behind his character? His obsession over a prudish ex pom-pom girl & refusal to accept his destiny (no matter how many times Jor-El whacks him upside the head w/ a Kryptonian brick) has dragged out about as far as it can w/o completely boring us to 'death' (excepting the demographic that goes "googly eyes" for him no matter what kind of buffoonish behavior the writers offer up). Isn't it time Clark is made into someone we can cheer for? I can't bring myself to cheer for this whiny, depressed, pity party (don't send me an invitation, please) adaption of the legend we all know & love. It wouldn't surprise me if Lex (homicidal egomaniac that he is) has more of a following than this "jellyfish" version of Clark Kent. We as fans deserve a true hero, and so far, this CK just hasn't cut the mustard. NOT AT ALL. I can only hope some of our voices are reverberrating in TPTB's heads... for creativity's sake.

i think i'm gonna cry. i've found my long lost twin! :D

KRAM-el

01-28-2006, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
i think i'm gonna cry. i've found my long lost twin! :D

OMG!!! And I thought I was an only child!!!!!!! :eek:

BoSoxJim

01-28-2006, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
OMG!!! And I thought I was an only child!!!!!!! :eek:

believe me. when you get to know me,you'll wish you were. :)

jmf1

01-29-2006, 07:06 AM

What do you expect from Clark. HE's been with the biggest pretty in pink pity party person of all - Lana. Now that Clana is dead may be he can grow up to be the man of steel we know and want him to become.

norman619

01-29-2006, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Mog-el
Well it look like fate still wanted lana dead in the new timeline ,but clark knew about lana accident after reversing time and intervene her death.

In the first timeline pa kent was stop from meeting lionel by lana death. But woudn't pa still be distract by lana accident,if clark didn't stop the bus. So clark stopping lana death that would of save bo, instead clark was able to prevent lana death but doom pa kent.

Damn you tptb!

Nope he'd still have to meet with Lionel. That is fated to happen. He is somene he'd still have to deal with. He'd still would have over reacted and gave himself that fatal heartattack. If it was fated for Lana to die Clark would not have been able to stop it. That's what fate means. You can not stop it no matter what. An accident can be avoided but a death by natural causes can not. His dad's death was fate Lana's was not. So in reality Clark could have only saved one of them anyway because he has no control over his dad's emotional behaviour which is what kills Pa Kent. Remember how he got his heart condition? His fate was signed and sealed when he accepted Jorels offer to amp him up to bring the kid home. Remember Pa Kent made an informed decision. He wasn't tricked into anything. There was nothing Clark could have done to save him. The damage was done LONG ago. So the the real choice was to allow Lana to die in the accident or not. Maybe Clark will finally start to grow up and see the bigger picture. I will be pissed if he goes back to his old ways and blames Jorel or someone else for this. If anyone has the blame for this it's Clark. He is the reason his father's heart was damaged in the beginning. He is too caught up in the fantasy of living a normal life while still being an outsider.

KrissO

01-29-2006, 11:15 AM

Very good post norman619. I totally agree.

About the time reversal. Jor-El knew all the way what would happen before Lana even died. That Clark would go back in time.
That was fate too.
Jor-El made a short death experience of Lana just to give Clark a lessson.

shirkie

01-29-2006, 11:46 AM

"Jor-El knew all the way what would happen before Lana even died"?

JOR-EL IS NOT GOD. In fact, he's a DEAD GUY. He's DEAD. I'm sick of them giving him godlike powers that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The icy dildo of time-reversal (TM Omar over at TWoP) was a horrible plot device and revealed a very, very ugly aspect of Clark's personality... That he was willing to sacrifice his own father for The Pink One.
shirkie

Daphne

01-29-2006, 11:47 AM

Bad writing. We know that is part of the problem. The other huge part is that Jor-El, Clarks' loving father, WHO IS DEAD, has all this control over his life. What is that all about? It's complete crap. Jor-El is dead and should be educating Clark from prerecorded crystals. Not spending his time killing humans.

vadvaro

01-29-2006, 12:00 PM

Jor-El did NOT kill Jonathan OR Lana.

The Universe has a life force equation and reputting life back into Clark set into motion a balance factor that caused someone else to lose their life who was close to Clark.

It was the Universe balancing out (think Final Destination) what Jor El broke by giving life back to Clark.

However, whoever wrote these rules seems to really suck...and keep giving Clark no-win situations, of course Clark doesn't help by CONTINUING to act solely in the interest of Lana (and Lex loves her too now for no apparent reason)s

WHY

cause she's pretty?

Is that it? Is that all a human being's worth is to anyone. Cause if anyone DESERVES / EARNED someone's love because of their actions it's Chloe (no surprise there)

I'm sick of WB young hot teen shows.....and this "Everything You've Waited to See....You'll See" bit was just shill to drive ratings while the writing team did a bait and switch and left us with NOTHING resolved.

I get more annoyed everytime I think about it...

Daphne

01-29-2006, 01:03 PM

Clark didn't ask to have his life put back into him, he was dead when Jor-El made the decision, which by the way a dead alien can't do. They are treating Jor-El like some kind of God or something.

I suppose at some point we find out the "Jor-El" is really Brainiac pretending to be Jor-El?

jdot

01-29-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by shirkie
"Jor-El knew all the way what would happen before Lana even died"?

JOR-EL IS NOT GOD. In fact, he's a DEAD GUY. He's DEAD. I'm sick of them giving him godlike powers that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The icy dildo of time-reversal (TM Omar over at TWoP) was a horrible plot device and revealed a very, very ugly aspect of Clark's personality... That he was willing to sacrifice his own father for The Pink One.
shirkie

Yeah, wasn't it horrible when Jor-El said "if you do this the man who raised you is going to croak instead" and Clark was all "Give me the crystal anyway!"

Oh, wait, that didn't happen, did it?

Jor-El said that a balance would be made. Guess what: Clark still lost Lana. I don't think Lana not dying made Jonathan's heart suddenly weaker.

norman619

01-29-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by jdot
Yeah, wasn't it horrible when Jor-El said "if you do this the man who raised you is going to croak instead" and Clark was all "Give me the crystal anyway!"

Oh, wait, that didn't happen, did it?

Jor-El said that a balance would be made. Guess what: Clark still lost Lana. I don't think Lana not dying made Jonathan's heart suddenly weaker.

Funny how that went eh?

Nerial

01-29-2006, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
Points well made as well, Kudos. But I think the ultimate blame here goes to an uncreative writing staff that doesn't know continuity from a (plot)hole in the ground... The story arc from season-season and (even worse) ep-ep has been so inconsistent that it's no wonder Clark can't win. Yes, as a writer your job is to keep the hero (protagonist) in jeopardy or turmoil, but sadly this interpretation has Clark looking like a bumbling, confused fool. How are we supposed to like & get behind his character? His obsession over a prudish ex pom-pom girl & refusal to accept his destiny (no matter how many times Jor-El whacks him upside the head w/ a Kryptonian brick) has dragged out about as far as it can w/o completely boring us to 'death' (excepting the demographic that goes "googly eyes" for him no matter what kind of buffoonish behavior the writers offer up). Isn't it time Clark is made into someone we can cheer for? I can't bring myself to cheer for this whiny, depressed, pity party (don't send me an invitation, please) adaption of the legend we all know & love. It wouldn't surprise me if Lex (homicidal egomaniac that he is) has more of a following than this "jellyfish" version of Clark Kent. We as fans deserve a true hero, and so far, this CK just hasn't cut the mustard. NOT AT ALL. I can only hope some of our voices are reverberrating in TPTB's heads... for creativity's sake.

I WILL agree with most of what you say here. Typically, I've been defending the writers--stories develop through conflict, but this is going beyond reason.

The line's been drawn--Superman in training? Okay, get him on the ball! Clark is a good guy; if he were a normal person, his actions wouldn't be nearly as bad, but he's not, and he has bigger decisions to make for it. He is the future Superman, for crying out loud!

How can he make these life-changing decisions when he's constantly faced with situations where he can't win either way?

MichaelCorleone

01-29-2006, 09:48 PM

Hey guys. Long time reader, first time poster.

I don't agree with the idea that Clark's a murderer, nor do I agree with the idea that many of y'all are proposing that since he's the future Superman he's not being given any slack for making mistakes.

I think we need to remember that Clark, Lana, Chloe, and Lois are in their late teens and early twenties, Lex is in his late twenties (as I am), Jonathan Kent is (or was, I should say) more mature but his major flaw is (was) his stubbornness, and Martha's a wife who, no offense, is like a lot of women in that she is guided more by emotion (in this case, her love for her husband and her desire for him to be happy) than logic.

Sure, Clark's the future Superman, but that doesn't change the fact that he's still a teenager, and therefore being a teenager, he makes stupid decisions a lot of the time due to lack of both maturity and experience. Being the future Superman has nothing to do with it. Hasn't DC Comics put out who knows how many Elseworlds stories and implications in the current continuity about how Superman would have been much different if he had had a different childhood? Isn't the SuperBOY Prime in the DC Comics Infinite Crisis right now making a lot of worse mistakes (like directly killing people and trying to change an entire planet's destiny) than Smallville's SuperBOY (emphasis on BOY purposeful)? Doesn't that tell us in truth what this show is in fact truly about...the youth of Superman, showing us what it took to make him the role model he eventually becomes as an adult? I'm a preacher for a living, but that doesn't mean that when I was younger I made all the right choices, 'cause I didn't. I still don't, believe it or not. Clark's the same. What Smallville is about is showing how the boy becomes a man, and boys don't become true men without first making mistakes and then learning from them. And in real life, a lot of times mistakes are made over and over again until the lesson finally sinks in, and that's what's been going on with Clark over the last few seasons.

Lana's the same way. She's what, eighteen, twenty? She tells Clark, "I love you," but isn't mature enough to be patient and stick it through in spite of his flaws. As a minister, I see this a lot in marriages, especially marriages between people their age. That's one of the reasons for the high divorce rate. She's simply acting her age.

Everyone rips on Lois for being snarky and sarcastic all the time. Well, she's what, twenty? A lot of college age girls (and guys) are like that. Some of them grow up. In the meantime, I think we should stop expecting her to act mature when she's in fact only twenty years old.

People also rip on Chloe for carrying a torch for Clark in spite of his "love" for Lana. Well, she's young too. When I was her age, I carried a torch for almost three years for a girl who wouldn't give me the time of day, and earlier on I broke up with a girl who, after I broke up with her, carried a torch for me for about two years. These things happen.

But I digress.

Clark made the best decision he could make with that maturity level. Was it the right one? No. However, that doesn't make him a murderer, nor does it mean that now he doesn't deserve to be the future Superman. The future Superman will be the great hero and role model he is due to learning from the mistakes he made as a youth, which is what this show is about.

vyperman7

01-29-2006, 09:51 PM

I am torn.

Clark just lost the woman that he loves and that is bound to affect his judgement.

On the other hand, he was told that nature would find a balance. So knowing that, he made the conscious decision to save Lana's life when he was basically told straight out that someone else would have to die to take her place.

ma200

01-29-2006, 10:09 PM

After thinking about this for a little bit...doesn't murder imply malice? It does seem like Clark once again didn't think about the consequences of what he did so....yeah, I wouldn't him a murderer.

~Fanny

KRAM-el

01-29-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by MichaelCorleone

Clark made the best decision he could make with that maturity level. Was it the right one? No. However, that doesn't make him a murderer, nor does it mean that now he doesn't deserve to be the future Superman. The future Superman will be the great hero and role model he is due to learning from the mistakes he made as a youth, which is what this show is about.

I can understand where you are coming from here, and your thoughts are defendable, but the argument some of us have here (and some of us are writers, & this is why it pains us so) is that there has been little character progression where it comes to Clark & Lana. Furthermore, I do not buy the "immaturity" crutch for a moment. Now, I realize this is a fictional story based on Comic book canon, but...
Clark is of a superior race of life (superior intelligence)
Jor-El has already given him some benefit of Kryptonian knowledge (not to mention his KS H/S diploma)
He has made difficult decisions in the past
Yet on a weekly basis, he is written (yes, I blame the writers here more than anyone) as the most incompetent Alien in the history of the universe, creating more disasters than Charlie Brown (Everything I touch get's ruined). It's the same writers who gave Clark his poor decision-making ability that painted him into a corner for this death. No, he can't win. OK, maybe he's not a murderer in the obvious sense (such as thrusting a dagger through JK's heart), but he is RESPONSIBLE for the death regardless. Yes, he was thrust into this abyss by his own actions, but he MUST pay, and pay he MUST.

Sydafex7

01-29-2006, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Arista 07
How Clark managed to ecape blame I'll never understand, but he is completely responsible for Jonathan's death. He made the conscious decision to play God. He decided to put Lana before every one else on Earth and spare her life, knowing that the life of another would be chosen. He pratically sacrificed Jonathan on Lana's behalf. Martha tried to play it off by claiming that Clark wouldn't have been able to chose between them, which is almost just as worst.

I'm no fan of Jonathan. As a matter of fact, I'm glad he's dead. However, I do not like Clark's hand in him dying. I do not believe nor want this version of Clark Kent to become Superman. He's a selfish, narrow-minded asshat. This far along, it's too much of a stretch.

People are saying that Clark is responsible directly for Jonathans death but I dont believe so. HE FINALLY found someone he could truly be with and she gets taken away. I mean are you guys who are saying that Clark is a horrible future Superman forgetting the fact that he got engaged?? I mean it was PERFECT. He no longer had to lie to the love of his life, Lana accepted him AND said yes. Its what Clark has always wanted. He overcame is greatest fear and survived. The show has always shown Clark's greatest challenge as being trying to find someone he can be with who will acpet him for who he is. HE tried it with Alicia, who didnt even know he was an alien, only that he had powers and that didnt work.

Here, he actually tells the woman he loves that HE IS AN ALIEN. LIke Lana said his heart was racing because he was sooo terrified. But guess what? HE overcame his fears which to me, is a huge step in Character development. Sure, he decided to take it all back and NOT tell her, but what would you do if you were him. Just let her die? Id jump at the chance to fix the problem. Just because he made the decision he made, doesnt mean hes not worthy of being Superman. How can you call him selfish when he has saved soooo many strangers through the series. He ditched football and a full ride to do the morally correct thing which was a huge decision for him to make. He also gave up a true and honest relationship to save a life.

When Jor-el said Nature would find a balance, how is Clark supposed to know that means Jonathan's life in exchange? For all CLark knows, Nature will kill some poor smuck sitting on death row. Sure, originally Jor-el said someone close to him will die, but Clark was under the impression that saving that person would fix the problem.

Old Juan

01-29-2006, 10:40 PM

When Jor-el said Nature would find a balance, how is Clark supposed to know that means Jonathan's life in exchange? For all CLark knows, Nature will kill some poor smuck sitting on death row. Sure, originally Jor-el said someone close to him will die, but Clark was under the impression that saving that person would fix the problem.

No he wasn't. Jor-El made it clear as day to Clark that even if he succeeded in saving Lana from death that nature would find a balance, which means that someone else will die in her place. Someone close to Clark was going to die no matter what. He knew that and he simply made the decision that Lana's life was more important than anybody elses. Jor-El gave him that warning before Clark grabbed the crystal so when he does grab it he does so knowing full well that even if he succeeds in saving Lana's life the second time around someone else will still die.

KRAM-el

01-29-2006, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
When Jor-el said Nature would find a balance, how is Clark supposed to know that means Jonathan's life in exchange? For all CLark knows, Nature will kill some poor smuck sitting on death row. Sure, originally Jor-el said someone close to him will die, but Clark was under the impression that saving that person would fix the problem.

It WAS hinted that it would be someone else close to Clark (I don't think he has any friends on death row), so he simply made the selfish choice & let the chips fall where they may. RESPONSIBLE either way. And I think this "any of us would make the same decision" crap is a cop-out. You only get ONE father... you could, presumably, find another love (he IS young, remember?). And in this adaption, it didn't appear to me that he had to make the decision as fast as he did... Jor-El even told him to think about the repercussions... but our ever-loving moron of a future superhero decides on impulse anyway. MURDERER!!!!
Off w/ his Kryptonian head!!!!!!!!

kostaki00

01-29-2006, 10:47 PM

Sydafex7

01-29-2006, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
It WAS hinted that it would be someone else close to Clark (I don't think he has any friends on death row), so he simply made the selfish choice & let the chips fall where they may. RESPONSIBLE either way. And I think this "any of us would make the same decision" crap is a cop-out. You only get ONE father... you could, presumably, find another love (he IS young, remember?). And in this adaption, it didn't appear to me that he had to make the decision as fast as he did... Jor-El even told him to think about the repercussions... but our ever-loving moron of a future superhero decides on impulse anyway. MURDERER!!!!
Off w/ his Kryptonian head!!!!!!!!

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that no one on this board is a friggin alien so how can ANY of us know what CLark goes through everyday??

I believe I SAID that it was hinted at that it would be someone close to him. And.. that was Lana... Clark SAVED her remember? So Jor-el told him Nature would find a way to balance it out. For all Clark knows, that balance would happen with someone else, since hes saved the initial death Jor-el spoke of.

Sure hes young, but step into Clark's shoes.. the DUDE'S A FRIGGIN ALIEN!! Who the hell would EVER accept him? Chloe did but thats because shes always been fascinated with weird ****. Lana on the other hand, had parents KILLED by rocks FROM an Alien Planet. WHy the HELL would she accept him?? Clark overcame his fears and won.. For all he knew he'd never find anyone else that truly would accept him. THe dude's not a killer, just an ALIEN who's young and wants a a soulmate.

Jellie

01-29-2006, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by kostaki00
You're an idiot!
He wasn't thinking straight. He was devastated!
And...and...and...it's just a tv show...breathe

dont be so rude . I agree with arista on this one. I agree 100%

KRAM-el

01-29-2006, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
THe dude's not a killer, just an ALIEN who's young and wants a a soulmate.

Look who's getting too serious -- at least I was trying to be FUNNY (obviously I have failed miserably -- like BDA Clark)... And all I said was he is ultimately RESPONSIBLE. NOBODY said he was a homicidal maniac -- I think you have him confused w/ the various FOTW's... :p Now take a hint and :rotfl: you'll feel better.

ScrappyTheOwl

01-30-2006, 01:31 AM

KRAM-el, I agree with you. I think Clark is responsible, but I wouldn't call him a murderer...

With that said, if in his situation I would have done the exact same thing. The love of my life just died, thinking it was my fault, I'm screaming at my biological father with tears running down my face, and he mentions that I can bring the person I love back but fate needs some sort of balance?

Screw that. I'd take the bloody crystal, too.

I don't care if you're biologically more logical and intelligent than half the people on this planet combined, emotions can make that fly out of your head like it isn't there at all. A stronger man could have left things as they were to prevent another death, but our favorite BDA has never been one to effectively control his emotions.

The one I consider the muderer here is Jor-El. I know some people feel that Clark is reponsible because he chose not to go back to Jor-El after the sun went down in Arrival, but I feel (based on my interpretation of the events), that when Jor-El revived Clark, he was the one angering Fate/Destiny and Clark's revival would need to be balanced in time by the death of someone close to him. If Jor-El would have left Clark dead (which is what Clark wanted--but by then it was too late to change things), no one close to Clark need to have died. Jor-El blamed it all on Clark, saying his initial decision caused all this, but in reality it was Clark's decision leading up to events (his death because he was mortal) that caused Jor-El to make the choice.

DARKRAGE

01-30-2006, 02:59 AM

I do not think Clark is a Murderer because he is the "Hero of the story". He made a decision to save someones life but because there was not an immeadiate threat to his father he didn't react. I think he is still a flawed character at the moment as he doesnt think things through and goes with gut feelings a lot of the time. some times they pay off and some times they don't. But with what has happened to his father now maybe he will think more of the consequences

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by ScrappyTheOwl

The one I consider the muderer here is Jor-El. I know some people feel that Clark is reponsible because he chose not to go back to Jor-El after the sun went down in Arrival, but I feel (based on my interpretation of the events), that when Jor-El revived Clark, he was the one angering Fate/Destiny and Clark's revival would need to be balanced in time by the death of someone close to him. If Jor-El would have left Clark dead (which is what Clark wanted--but by then it was too late to change things), no one close to Clark need to have died. Jor-El blamed it all on Clark, saying his initial decision caused all this, but in reality it was Clark's decision leading up to events (his death because he was mortal) that caused Jor-El to make the choice.

Scrappy, points well made , but I have to differ w/ you here (and you knew I would :p )...

Jor-El as a living Kryptonian is DEAD. Yes, dead. But he has left behind his "Deus Ex Machina" to guide Clark along in his destiny that was set forth for him when He & Lara placed him in the ship & sent him on his journey to Earth (no I can't explain this -- let's remember this is a fictional story based on a comic book, after all). This "AI" IMHO, has been programmed w/ every possible scenario that a young Kal-El might face (note that Jor-El never never calls him "Clark") on his destinal journey & rites of passage. Jor-El's AI is merely teaching Clark by using (CK's) own actions as "data input" you might say. If Clark were to disobey the AI & died, it was pre-programmed that he would be brought back -- his destiny is more important (saving the world) & "nature", therefore, had to strike a balance. NOT Jor-El, not his AI. Kryptonians are NOT Gods, as he said...
The fact that it had to be someone close to Clark again, is more like "God's" attempt at punishment for his actions. If you want to still say the ultimate blame is still on Jor-El for programming Clark's potential resurrection in the first place, well, I can't argue that to the bitter end logically but it would take a much longer road to get there. I still lay the blame more directly on Clark for his poor decision-making. No , I take that back -- I blame the writers for (even after 4.5 years) still making him look like a pathetic, raging fool. Poor Clark. Deep down, he IS better than this.

Flight_Without_Wings

01-30-2006, 09:12 AM

One question I have is why jonathon did not stop to help Lana when he passed by and saw her standing on the road with Lex close by? He could have at least asked if he could help or something. Guess he was not the charitable Good Samaritan we all thought he was.

jclay12345

01-30-2006, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Flight_Without_Wings
One question I have is why jonathon did not stop to help Lana when he passed by and saw her standing on the road with Lex close by? He could have at least asked if he could help or something. Guess he was not the charitable Good Samaritan we all thought he was.

Because he was mad and thinking about the conversation he just had on the phone with Lionel. You see he mean-mugged both of them. He saw the son of the man that made him mad with his son's girl. That was a priceless look.

But on the original topic, why is everyone upset with Clark. JK was going to die anyway. He had heart problems from the beginning. If he didn't save Lana, she would have died and two or three weeks later JK would have died anyway.

FireFemme

01-30-2006, 10:45 AM

Clark's decision to bring Lana back caused the death of his father. Clark is 18 and was given the chance to bring back his dead fiance that he's loved his whole life. If any person had that chance in real life, I think most people wouldn't hesitate to play God.

It's very hard to accept reality when you can't change anything, but Clark was able to, so instead of grieving for what you can't change, he changed it. This is obviously his turning point into becoming Superman, since Superman is a person who protects the people. Superman finds a way to save everyone, he doesn't let one person live over another. Clark doesn't know how to do that yet, but I think his ordeal with Lana and his dad will change his view on the world and cause him to develop more into Superman.

Watching Smallville

01-30-2006, 10:52 AM

I actually think it's impossible to guess what I would do in the same situation if I thought someone else would die in the person's place. Life and death decisions, people usually take very seriously. I think I'd be thinking about who else might die, who their loved ones might be, how it might affect them. It's hard to say what you would do unless you're actually faced with the decision. JMHO.

That's also why it's hard for me to think of Clark as a murderer.

clois1938

01-30-2006, 11:11 AM

murderer, that's a bit extreme. poor clark :\ let's just hope he isn't a BDA anymore

slave2moonlight

01-30-2006, 12:13 PM

Clark never killed anyone. He was forced to decide if Lana would die or someone else. It was "nature's laws" (going by the show, anyway) that demanded someone to die in Clark's place when he came back from the dead, and I could be getting forgetful, but didn't he NOT find out about that little catch until AFTER he was brought back to life? Even so, in that case it was a matter of save all of Smallville at the cost of one, or stay dead and let them get nuked. Not a selfish choice to come back. As for choosing that Lana come back and someone else take the consequences, it seems that Clark felt he could play "Final Destination" and keep up with "death" well enough to save everybody. I think Clark just didn't want to see ANYONE dead. Had his father died first (instead of Lana) he probably would have been in the fortress asking for Jonathan to be brought back. After the second death (Jonathan), I guess he knew he was beaten. This all seems to be a big lesson about not tampering with the past, trying to undo deaths and things like that. Clark is learning that he must stop people from dying the first time, and if HE gets killed, game over. I wonder who had to take Lois's place when Superman said "to heck with it" and defied his fathers wishes in Superman: The Movie, turning back time and saving her from the earthquake...

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Old Juan
No he wasn't. Jor-El made it clear as day to Clark that even if he succeeded in saving Lana from death that nature would find a balance, which means that someone else will die in her place. Someone close to Clark was going to die no matter what. He knew that and he simply made the decision that Lana's life was more important than anybody elses. Jor-El gave him that warning before Clark grabbed the crystal so when he does grab it he does so knowing full well that even if he succeeds in saving Lana's life the second time around someone else will still die.

One thing to add here: Jor-El (or his AI) made NO GUARANTEE that Clark's grabbing the crystal & rebooting would save Lana -- but he MADE A CHOICE - informed or logical or emotional or whatever - that doomed a life (and he knew ONLY that it would be another close to him), which, IMHO, DOES imply malice. Yes, it was a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" moment, but the instant he grabbed the crystal, HE (& not fate) was doubly responsible... first for the decision in the first place, THEN for HIS decision to try to change things, & doom (possibly) another, other than Lana. It's clear in my eyes, but I'm not trying to convince anyone, just convey the logic used in arriving at my opinion (God, I LOVE this!!!) *grins from ear-to-ear*

Watching Smallville

01-30-2006, 12:42 PM

I think it's a fascinating argument. To my mind, murder implies an intended victim -- there was none in this case. Negligence is another matter. I just don't think this rises to murder.

Flight_Without_Wings

01-30-2006, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
I can understand where you are coming from here, and your thoughts are defendable, but the argument some of us have here (and some of us are writers, & this is why it pains us so) is that there has been little character progression where it comes to Clark & Lana. Furthermore, I do not buy the "immaturity" crutch for a moment. Now, I realize this is a fictional story based on Comic book canon, but...
Clark is of a superior race of life (superior intelligence)
Jor-El has already given him some benefit of Kryptonian knowledge (not to mention his KS H/S diploma)
He has made difficult decisions in the past
Yet on a weekly basis, he is written (yes, I blame the writers here more than anyone) as the most incompetent Alien in the history of the universe, creating more disasters than Charlie Brown (Everything I touch get's ruined). It's the same writers who gave Clark his poor decision-making ability that painted him into a corner for this death. No, he can't win. OK, maybe he's not a murderer in the obvious sense (such as thrusting a dagger through JK's heart), but he is RESPONSIBLE for the death regardless. Yes, he was thrust into this abyss by his own actions, but he MUST pay, and pay he MUST.

I am glad to find out that someone else agrees that Clark should be super intelligent but contiues to act like a Moron. This has been my greatest complaint of the whole series. Unfortunately most of the other characters act the Moron from week to week as well but at least they are human and can plead plain stupidity. I wish they would just give these characters at least average intelligence so that the show could progress.

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
I think it's a fascinating argument. To my mind, murder implies an intended victim -- there was none in this case. Negligence is another matter. I just don't think this rises to murder.

Well, OK, but that's not necessarily the truth... If some becomes intoxicated, drives, & kills someone (random victim), they can STILL be charged w/ Murder (in the eyes of the law), based on their decision to drive drunk (putting MANY possible lives at risk). And I'm not wholeheartedly supporting the "Murder" issue (although I've waxed humorously on it above) but more to the extent that Clark is RESPONSIBLE for the death (no matter WHO it turned out to be). It's more like manslaughter (negligent homicide). *Hey! Put down that g... BANG!*

Watching Smallville

01-30-2006, 01:10 PM

That's an interesting argument, because if you think about it, it's as if fate is the drunk driver, and we have no idea who it's going to hit. And Clark gave Fate the keys to the car. So -- that does make him complicit in some way. The difference is, we know the car is going to hit someone. So when you give Fate the keys to the car, that is bad. That's like conspiracy.

(I've been watching too much Law & Order :rolleyes: )

No-El

01-30-2006, 01:16 PM

tejdog1

01-30-2006, 01:21 PM

OK, look at it this way. Lana died - balance is restored. Jon NEED NOT DIE FOR CLARK. If he subsequently dies, in Timeline 1, it is NOT Jor-El, Clark, Nature, idiots @ the WB...oh wait...

Moving on, in Timeline 2, Clark SAVES Lana, thus the imbalance still exists, which means SOMEONE ELSE has to die for Clark. Clark CREATED THE IMBALANCE - he set the chain of events in motion, doesnt matter ONE BIT if Jon would've bit it in a freakin 600 car pile up on I10, or in a fight (can that really be called a fight?) with Lionel, Clark is responsible for Jon's death, either way. Clark is guilty of negligent homicide, maybe not malice. But - and this I think cements his guilt - he put EVERYONE at risk to save Witchy. EVERYONE was on the chopping block, Martha, Jonathan, Chloe, Lois, Lex (I guess?), Pete...everyone.

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
That's like conspiracy.

And you can get the 'Death Penalty' for that -- ooooh, sorry...

* dodges rocks & bottles *

franklincobb

01-30-2006, 01:33 PM

Okay, here's a thought--if Clark is a murderer here, then he's a murderer in the original Superman and Superman II movies, and for the same reason.

He "alters time" by spinning the earth around--as alluded to in this very episode. Why? To save Lois. She then went on to get into those wacky hijinks in Paris (which of course got Superman involved). He flies off to save her, chucks that bomb into space and shatters the Phantom Zone prison of Zod and his cronies. Zod and company kill several civilians.

Had Lois died in that desert, he may have never even gotten involved, and Zod would have never gotten freed.

And then, there's the whole part about, "he couldn't save Lois because he was helping others..." well, if he went back in time, who helped those other people while he saved Lois?

Dumb argument, I know, but really it holds about as much merit as some of the rest of these arguments.

Clark has learned that no matter what power he has at his disposal, he can't save everyone--and every choice he makes, every person he saves, there are consequences.

Why didn't Jonathan stop to help Lana? He saw her chatting with Lex on the side of the road mere moments after Jonathan had won the election. For all he knew, Lana had been helping Lex with his campaign. Remember, in this reality, Clark and Lana weren't getting married, and she had in fact broke it off with Clark.

Plus, Jonathan was probably already contemplating a nice Lionel beatdown, and only something shocking like Lana's crash was enough to get him to stop.

If anyone "killed" Jonathan, it was Jonathan himself. He took those powers from Jor-El. He ran for public office. He got into a physical confrontation with Lionel, knowing his condition. And as stated, there is no evidence that Jonathan wasn't destined to die in the same way the next time he confronted Lionel.

Watching Smallville

01-30-2006, 01:36 PM

Well, it's not really the same thing, because CLark knows in Smallville that someone is doomed. In the example you give above, Superman doesn't have any idea of what the consequences of his actions will be. Although I agree - I'm not on board with the murder view --- yet. KRAM-el is wearing me down! :lol:

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 01:37 PM

The only deduction I can make out of this whole tangled mess is: Timewarp = Murder. But then again, I AM about as insane as Lex in "Shattered"... :p

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
KRAM-el is wearing me down! :lol:

Who loves ya, baby??? :rotfl:

* shaves head & sucks lollipop *

Jebriggs98

01-30-2006, 01:38 PM

I don't think Clark is a murderer. Clark did not choose to come back to life. When he was shot and died as far as he knew that was it. Jor-El brought him back and Clark even told Jor-El that he did not want to be alive if it meant someone had to die in his place. He had no choice.

slave2moonlight

01-30-2006, 01:41 PM

I think it's possibly that Jonathan simply died of a heart attack, and it satisfied fate. Perhaps Jor-El was once again in Lionel, and got Jonathan worked up so he'd have the heart attack, satisfying fate, letting his son's woman live, and also forcing the boy to become a man. Traditionally speaking, they always make it out on TV and in movies that you have to become the "man of the house" when your father dies.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 01:45 PM

The whole idea of "the universe trying to right the wrong that was Clark coming back to life" is utterly ridiculous. Clark can't be a murderer if Jor-El brought him back to life without him asking anyway.

And how did he bring him back to life? Or take his powers away? There's no explanation given! So I hesitate to place blame fully on Clark and rather choose to forget that part of the season EVER HAPPENED. >_<

No-El

01-30-2006, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
The whole idea of "the universe trying to right the wrong that was Clark coming back to life" is utterly ridiculous. Clark can't be a murderer if Jor-El brought him back to life without him asking anyway.

And how did he bring him back to life? Or take his powers away? There's no explanation given! So I hesitate to place blame fully on Clark and rather choose to forget that part of the season EVER HAPPENED. >_<

That is why it is called Science Fiction!:lol:

Watching Smallville

01-30-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
So I hesitate to place blame fully on Clark and rather choose to forget that part of the season EVER HAPPENED. >_<
I'd like to forget that a lot of this season ever happened! :lol:

One question for me is, why not take a Kryptonian life in exchange for Clark's? Wouldn't that make more sense? And why does someone close to Clark have to be the exchange -- there's never any rationale given for that. Is it decided by Jor-El? Doesn't that make Jor-El the murderer for bringing Clark back? He's the one who declares/decides that the life needs to be taken. Actually Jor-El implied that Clark became a murderer way back when he didn't return to the FOS at sunset.

There's some flawed logic here. Clark had no knowledge of the potential consequences when he didn't return to the FOS. He just thought he had broken a promise.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:11 PM

Basically, because it's superman, the writers feel like they are immune from criticism, and supporters can justify any weird thing that happens on the show. Now I know how I'm gonna make my millions.

I guess if people still enjoy it (how you enjoy being cheated an djerked around I dunno) then good. But I'm certainly not enjoying this lull of season five....:(

No-El

01-30-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Basically, because it's superman, the writers feel like they are immune from criticism, and supporters can justify any weird thing that happens on the show. Now I know how I'm gonna make my millions.

I guess if people still enjoy it (how you enjoy being cheated an djerked around I dunno) then good. But I'm certainly not enjoying this lull of season five....:(

You are not leaving the show are you?:confused:

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville

There's some flawed logic here. Clark had no knowledge of the potential consequences when he didn't return to the FOS. He just thought he had broken a promise.

Except I believe he was warned of "grave consequences" or something like that. And it ISN'T Jor-El (He's DEAD, for heavens sake!), it's his AI or "Deus Ex Machina". So it's an inatimate object (or energy) that's at fault -- "Raise the guillotine!!!!!!"
* Die, dead horse, DIE!!! * *kicks at decaying carcass *

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:18 PM

No, eventually Smallville always pays off. I won't leave. Besides, if I completely turn against the show, then I won't have license to be pious and force people to see my own crazy views.:D

But really, the mid-season arcs have declined to a terminal level.

Flight_Without_Wings

01-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by PeteM
That is crap.

Before the reset, Jonathon was on his way to see Lionel where presumbably he would have died from a heart attack. Lana was on driving through an intersection where the bus driver ranned a stop light because of party goers on the bus.

Presumbably all of this Lana and Clark bashing is based on the assumption that because of Lana's accident, Jonathon would have not continued on to meet Lionel and presumbably he will not have a heartattack that night or any time in the foreseeable future. For that to happen, I am also supposed to assume that Lionel and Jonathon's heart condition will just magically go away. Right.

But even following that logic, all of this Lana bashing is ridiculous because WITHOUT HER CAR ACCIDENT Johnathon would have died the first time around. Hello, unless the following occured, Jonathon would have been on his way to his date with destiny.

1. If Lana didn't meet Lex, no accident - Jonathon dies.

2. If Lex didn't call or chase after Lana, no accident - Jonathon dies.

3. If bus driver was paying and didn't run a stop sign, no accident - Jonathon dies.

4. If party goers weren't so rowdy, bus driver would not have been distract, no accident Jonathon dies.

So unless Lana was in that car accident, Jonathon is room temperature. So why the bashing?

The Clark bashing is also unwarranted because his dad had a heart condition; it was just a matter of time before it goes. How do we know that he wouldn't still go to meet with Lionel that very night. How unlikely is it that he will never meet with Lionel again?

Let's face it. TPTB killed off JK. According to the SM map, Jonathan would have been going in the oposite direction to his farm when the accident occured and could never have been involved or around the accident at all one way or the other. Bad writing puts him on the wrong road going the wrong way to get to his farm. Oh well what can you say.

And for the record, the wreck couldn't not have happened the way it did in the show as Lex's mansion is coming off the side road not the main road the bus would have been on, so Lana would have had to be the one running the stop sign.

Go figure.

Map can be found on the WB website.

johnny fogg

01-30-2006, 02:33 PM

Listen up: If you're going to tie everything back to the location where the show began (Loeb bridge) please don't then erase it from history. *smacks head*

MNbrowns

01-30-2006, 02:48 PM

I'm tired of the "Patrick Duffy" type of endings. They said it wouldn't be like that, but it was. Come on! Either tell her and move on or write her off the show and focus on Louis. This is getting REALLY old.

BTW, when will he get another new power? Cold breath, lazers out of fingoers? Something!

FotW

01-30-2006, 03:01 PM

I think calling Clark a murderer is a little extreme. I do however think he is partly responsible for his father's death in that he never asked Jor-El who would die, and he never begged Jor-El - to take his own life in exchange for Lana's or threaten to kill himself with Kryptonite if Jor-El insisted that his life was worth another. "No! I won't let you take a life for mine. I'd rather be dead myself." Would having the future Superman say that be asking too much? And then Jor-El could have decided to help him save Lana via the crystal etc. Later, if Jonathan died (since his character was bound for death anyway) I would have prefered if it was of purely natural causes - with absoluetly no question if Kryptonians were involved at all. ThenClark would have learned that even though he could save Lana which some Kyrptonian magic/science etc - he can't fight the natural order of life and death. Which I assume is the lesson he was supposed to learn anyway. The whole idea that Jor-El would somehow involve himself in the murder of a human being who took in his helpless alien baby son and gave him so much care and love throughout his life, makes him a cruel and probably evil character- I don't care what his motives were or what lesson he wanted to teach Clark. Jonathan protected and loved his son and he rewards him by killing him? If Jor-El is a "good" Kryptonian. I think I'll be a disciple of Zod.

ScrappyTheOwl

01-30-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el
Scrappy, points well made , but I have to differ w/ you here (and you knew I would :p )...

Jor-El as a living Kryptonian is DEAD. Yes, dead. But he has left behind his "Deus Ex Machina" to guide Clark along in his destiny that was set forth for him when He & Lara placed him in the ship & sent him on his journey to Earth (no I can't explain this -- let's remember this is a fictional story based on a comic book, after all). This "AI" IMHO, has been programmed w/ every possible scenario that a young Kal-El might face (note that Jor-El never never calls him "Clark") on his destinal journey & rites of passage. Jor-El's AI is merely teaching Clark by using (CK's) own actions as "data input" you might say. If Clark were to disobey the AI & died, it was pre-programmed that he would be brought back -- his destiny is more important (saving the world) & "nature", therefore, had to strike a balance. NOT Jor-El, not his AI. Kryptonians are NOT Gods, as he said...
The fact that it had to be someone close to Clark again, is more like "God's" attempt at punishment for his actions. If you want to still say the ultimate blame is still on Jor-El for programming Clark's potential resurrection in the first place, well, I can't argue that to the bitter end logically but it would take a much longer road to get there. I still lay the blame more directly on Clark for his poor decision-making. No , I take that back -- I blame the writers for (even after 4.5 years) still making him look like a pathetic, raging fool. Poor Clark. Deep down, he IS better than this.

If only TPTB thought like you did ;)

That's the problem--the TPTB have created Jor-El in such a way that he can only be interpreted as a god. I don't care how many "we're not gods" lines you throw at us--it doesn't change the way it looks. If, as you say, it was all pre-programmed for every possible situation--then Jor-El made the decision many, many years ago for Clark (as to whether to sacrifice his life so no one else died after he died, or not), and not at the time he died like I presumed. You're brought up a great point--a "memory/image/whatever" of a person/alien can't make choices. It would need to be already decided. Sure, Clark's destiny's greater ... but Jor-El clearly didn't care about who got hurt and/or killed along the way.

So I blame the writers, as well.

abster25

01-30-2006, 03:15 PM

yeah I will have to say i don't enjoy lana's charactor i have never really like her. but clark loved her and could not go on with out her but I personally liked johanthan better and i agree with martha he couldent ever choose between lana and his father but I think it is a mistake that he went back in time and changed what was really supposed to happen. And now that lana is still alive she will never be able to love him again becuase he would not tell her the truth but now his father is gone and can't help him with his troubles

RedDwarfette

01-30-2006, 06:12 PM

Posted by johnny fogg: Basically, because it's superman, the writers feel like they are immune from criticism, and supporters can justify any weird thing that happens on the show. This is so true! Whenever tptb get to a point where they believe themselves beyond criticism or even being accountable for their decisions, you just know it's all downhill from there.
Posted by jclay12345: He had heart problems from the beginning. If he didn't save Lana, she would have died and two or three weeks later JK would have died anyway. So? That's life. I hestitate to bring this up but, if a terminally ill person is murdered, a judge is not going to say 'Oh well, the person was going to die anyway. What's the big deal? Next case.' None of the characters could have known how much longer Jonathan had to live. Clark made the decision to sacrifice someone else without knowing who would replace Lana/balance out the Universe. Since he had no choice in selecting who kicked the bucket, it would be safe to assume the fact that his father's heart was weak was not an element in his decision. It could have easily been Martha instead. Again, I don't consider him to be an outright murderer, but his choice definitely signed the death warrant for someone else.

P.S. If Jor-El hadn't said that the person who would die would be one of Clarks loved ones and instead some random person dropped dead as a result, do you think Clark would feel as guilty? Knowing he basically traded one life for another, even if he didn't know the person, would he feel at all responsible? Just curious ;)

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by RedDwarfette
I don't consider him to be an outright murderer, but his choice definitely signed the death warrant for someone else. ;)

Oh boy! Got 'em really cookin' now! :D
* throws gasoline onto a roaring fire *

RedDwarfette

01-30-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by KRAM-el: Oh boy! Got 'em really cookin' now! :D
* throws gasoline onto a roaring fire *
Lol! That's the way I like it :p

thehenry89

01-30-2006, 06:44 PM

ok this is why the episode didn't sit straight with me. first of all clark propsed to a woman he has effectivly only been dating since september. thats only 3-4 months, as much as he "loves" or claims to love lana he really doesn't know her. plus nether of them is verry good about telling the truth. Then he decides i gonna play god and let someone else die for some one who i'm not destined to be with but rather shes my main squeez. His action was purely selfish and the kicker is he does'nt even end up with lana anyway. I don't care how long i spy on somebody from my barn with my pants down which in smallville constutes as great love. i would never think to let sombody else die for my own vanity and deluded feelings for a woman that obvioulsy doesn't respect you.

myownwoman

01-30-2006, 08:04 PM

Who is Clex?

I admit I have not been really following the episodes, so my knowledge of the show is pretty spotty.

When did JK start having heart problems?
Who is Clex? Oh wait do you mean Clark & Lex?

I know we are disagreeing on Clark's use of the crystal, but why did he still use it? Knowing that someone else is going to die to take her place? It does not make sense to me. I did not think this episode was all that great. I think they could have done better.

I cannot wait till this Thursday's episode to see how all they are coping with JK's passing. Are Clark & Lana still engaged after what has happened? Will Lana tell Lex, Clark's secret?

edit: I'm sorry for my writing mistakes, I was writing in a hurry. Thanks for answering my questions!:)

KRAM-el

01-30-2006, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by myownwoman
Who is Clex?

**Clark/Lex**

I admit I have not been really following the episodes, so my knowledge of the show is pretty spotty.

**Don't feel bad, you haven't missed much.**

When did JK start having heart problems?
Who is Clex? Oh wait do you mean Clark & Lex?

**Once he obtained powers from Jor-El to retrieve Clark in Metropolis (Clark under the influence of Red Kryptonite)**

**Yes (see above)**

I know we are disagreeing on Clark's use of the crystal, but why did he still use, knowing that someone else is going to die to take her place? It does not make sense to me. I did not think this episode was all that great, I think they could have done better.

**Poor writing. I can't rationalize it any better than that... and I've tried.**

I cannot wait till this this Thursday's episode to see how all they are coping with JK's passing. Are Clark & Lana still engaged after what has happened? Will Lana tell Lex, Clark's secret?

**They have broken up... Clark is back to lying to her (S3 all over again -- talk about time reversal)**

**She doesn't know it anymore, but we'll see what happens.**

johnny fogg

01-31-2006, 07:12 AM

Hmmm...I'm not liking Jor-EL very much, even after he possessed Lionel. Maybe the computer Jor-El is less humane than he is when inhabiting human form. But even Jorinel was pretty cold when he talked about killing Clark's loved one...

All about Clark

01-31-2006, 09:58 AM

There's a lot of you who say Clark's responsible and your reasoning is that Jonathan vs. Lana = murderer/blame

That is not what this episode was about. This episode was about Clark vs. Jor-el.

See Jor-el didn't just off a loved one of Clarks. He waited for Clark to start the chain of events that would lead to the death. If Clark was the cause of the death that he would do anything in his power to reverse it included using the training crystal, which would lead to Clark learning an important lesson. See, it didn't matter who died first, if Clark had caused it, and it was Jonathan he would have done the same thing. See Clark's MO is that he will keep trying to save people until he just can't anymore, case in point, Ryan, he kept doing what he could until he couldn't anymore. Jor-el was counting on Clark using the crystal. That is why this has nothing to do with Clark's choice. Jor-el needed a loved one to die for their to be an impact on Clark.

So please, stop using this thread and try to see the bigger picture.

And yes Kram-el, we know your opinion by now.

KRAM-el

01-31-2006, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by All about Clark

So please, stop using this thread and try to see the bigger picture.

And yes Kram-el, we know your opinion by now.

Well excuse me for my redundancy :( I think this thread has provided a lot of thought-provoking discussion... Trying to get people to end the thread because you don't agree w/ it is selfish on your part (I'm truly sorry, but it is). BTW, I was done w/ it (excepting your bash). I AM done w/ it now.:\ If the Mod's want to close it, be my guest.:(

All about Clark

01-31-2006, 10:38 AM

I think it was more important that you learned from what my post was trying to say.

Sorry for making fun of your +50 responses, but it took me a long time to read it all.

KRAM-el

01-31-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by All about Clark
I think it was more important that you learned from what my post was trying to say.

Sorry for making fun of your +50 responses, but it took me a long time to read it all.

I did, please give me some credit. ;) No harm, no foul. :)

rumpuso

01-31-2006, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Iowanmom
You know, I sit here reading these replies and I honestly try to see both sides of the arguement. After watching the episode again and again, I just can not support the statement that Clark Kent is a murderer in ANY way.

The most devastating decisions we as 'humans' can make are ones in the moment of complete and utter depspair. This is what makes Clark human. This is what makes him Johnathan Kent's son and NOT Jor-EL's.

His hands still tarnished with her blood, his eyes still pooling from visions of the lifeless and battered face that was his soulmate, Clark can only think to save her. In any way. In this moment. This time of heartwrenching pain and desperate 'need' to help her. His mind was beseiged by sorrow in not being able to protect her, knowing this was not her intended fate. But a fate that had been changed because of the constant battle of wills with Jor-EL.

Not only had he lost the love of his life, but he felt responsible for the death. Clark will always feel responsible for the deaths of his loved ones. Not merely because his life 'force' was returnded to him, but because of who he is, where he came from and the destruction and devestation that ensumed with his arrival. There is no other reaction when Jor-EL makes him face unbelievable trials that would cripple a normal human man, forcing him against his will to make decisions no mortal will have to.

Because he risked everything, makes him a hero. Because he pleaded for a life to be returned, makes him a hero. But mostly, because his is willing to go against all odds and do anything in his power to help those he loves and doesn't love, to the best of his ability with any and all oportunities he posesses, he is a hero.

Hindsight is 20/20. Jor-EL said fate will find a way. He isn't Superman. He could only try to save who was in need by any means he could.
Wonderful post Iowanman! You are quite a refreshing addition to this thread!!

myownwoman

01-31-2006, 11:30 AM

Ok I was not quite clear on the time reversal thing, but I understand it now.

This Thursday's episode is going to be one interesting one.

johnny fogg

01-31-2006, 11:37 AM

Hmmm...I want to see some SERIOUS repercussions after the FoS debacle. Al Gough said that without Clark's guiding compass (JK) he must 'become' Jonathan in order to keep his sense of morality.

The one good thing to come out of Reckoning, IMO, is that now when I look back on old reruns, I imgine Jonathan as the template for the future Superman. Kudos on the idea, Al Gough. Now let's see it played up. It's interesting. None of that endless penance for JK's death or any or that crap.

All about Clark

01-31-2006, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by All about Clark
There's a lot of you who say Clark's responsible and your reasoning is that Jonathan vs. Lana = murderer/blame

That is not what this episode was about. This episode was about Clark vs. Jor-el.

See Jor-el didn't just off a loved one of Clarks. He waited for Clark to start the chain of events that would lead to the death. If Clark was the cause of the death that he would do anything in his power to reverse it included using the training crystal, which would lead to Clark learning an important lesson. See, it didn't matter who died first, if Clark had caused it, and it was Jonathan he would have done the same thing. See Clark's MO is that he will keep trying to save people until he just can't anymore, case in point, Ryan, he kept doing what he could until he couldn't anymore. Jor-el was counting on Clark using the crystal. That is why this has nothing to do with Clark's choice. Jor-el needed a loved one to die for their to be an impact on Clark.

Well apparently Jor-el will bring Clark to the FOS to learn from the training crystals one-by-one if he has. Heartless, but pretty amazing on Jor-el's part.

clois1938

01-31-2006, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Kram-El
I think this thread has provided a lot of thought-provoking discussion...
Me too, I've been following along. Clark was definitely responsible and the points as to why have been well layed out in this thread. It's been a good read, thanks!

Watching Smallville

01-31-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by johnny fogg
Hmmm...I want to see some SERIOUS repercussions after the FoS debacle. Al Gough said that without Clark's guiding compass (JK) he must 'become' Jonathan in order to keep his sense of morality.

The one good thing to come out of Reckoning, IMO, is that now when I look back on old reruns, I imgine Jonathan as the template for the future Superman. Kudos on the idea, Al Gough. Now let's see it played up. It's interesting. None of that endless penance for JK's death or any or that crap.
That's a very interesting take on the story. If they follow through with this, I'm going to be really impressed.

Miss L

01-31-2006, 07:48 PM

I am really glad I read this thread. Even having rewatched the episode many times, I read some ideas here that I hadn't considered--on BOTH sides of the Clark's responsible for/not necessarily responsible for the death of his father arguement. It proves to me that Clark may actually be a little more fleshed out in character than I realized.

As someone who works with teens everyday who are totally--and I mean totally--absorbed in the "right now," and also someone who could stubbornly carry a torch much like Clark does for Lana, I totally get that he was acting from a completely emotional place in grabbing that crystal. And think about it--Clark does so incredibley much stifling of his own emotions that when they do bust through, everything goes awry.

But it was good to be reminded of the full progression of events that led to this ep. I was good to be reminded that Clark is written into no-win situations.

There were a lot of lessons in this ep and I just hope hope hope that the following episodes really and truly show what should come next in the development of Clark from teenager to mature young man--then to Superman.

Thanks for a super thread, and for once one that didn't dissolve into Lana-bashing!

kal3l

01-31-2006, 07:56 PM

This post is just plain stupid.

Clark is a murderer? he chosed lana over his father?

He did no such thing, Jor-el didn't say that Jonathon would die.
fate would even out the balance, there's billions of people in the world and it could have been anyone of them.

now Clark is Superman yet, he's still a young man who's human emotians run high.

Lets say your Wife/Husband/BF/GF had died and you had one chance to turn back time, you get warned that someone has to take the place.
you would probably think that it was gonna be some stranger from the other side of the world, and due to the situtation u are in (grief, pain, shock, temp insanity) would kick in and basically you wouldnt give a damn, because the only thing that would matter his getting your soul mate back.

It's human nature people and he still has an human side to him.

KRAM-el

01-31-2006, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by kal3l
This post is just plain stupid.

Clark is a murderer? he chosed lana over his father?

He did no such thing, Jor-el didn't say that Jonathon would die.
fate would even out the balance, there's billions of people in the world and it could have been anyone of them.

now Clark is Superman yet, he's still a young man who's human emotians run high.

Lets say your Wife/Husband/BF/GF had died and you had one chance to turn back time, you get warned that someone has to take the place.
you would probably think that it was gonna be some stranger from the other side of the world, and due to the situtation u are in (grief, pain, shock, temp insanity) would kick in and basically you wouldnt give a damn, because the only thing that would matter his getting your soul mate back.

It's human nature people and he still has an human side to him.

I know I said I wouldn't return to this thread BUT --

First -- You don't call a post or a thread STUPID -- that's a MAJOR no-no on the forum. Let the Moderators do that.

Second -- Did you read ANY of the posts in this thread? The answers to all your questions & statements are all laid out right here.

Third -- For the benefit of the rest of us - Argue your point, but be nice. This isn't "Ultimate Fighter" on SpikeTV; it's a discussion forum.

kal3l

01-31-2006, 08:27 PM

lol ok man sorry about that, maybe was too strong.

But seriously look at the title of these threads "clark is a murderer"?

I live in the UK, over here u can drink a bottle of vodka, go drive at 90MPH and run over a family killing, and u would get something stupid like 12 moths for dangerous driving.

Clark= Murderer, lil extreme dont u think?

KRAM-el

01-31-2006, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by kal3l

Clark= Murderer, lil extreme dont u think?

Maybe -- but it got you interested, didn't it??? ;)

Rimshot

01-31-2006, 11:00 PM

hbkid21

01-31-2006, 11:11 PM

I have a theory.........Let say in timeline one Johnathan dies. So Clark goes back in time to save his father but the nature still imbalance. So what if this time, Martha is the one that dies. Is Clark still a murderer then?

RedDwarfette

02-01-2006, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by hbkid21: I have a theory... Let say in timeline one Johnathan dies. So Clark goes back in time to save his father but the nature still imbalance. So what if this time, Martha is the one that dies. Is Clark still a murderer then? Clark would be just as much responsible for the death of Martha in this Alternate timeline you proposed as he is now for the death of Jonathan, yes. Regardless of who actually died, he basically swapped one life for the other, which doesn't seem noble :(

jimmyolsenblues

02-01-2006, 09:05 AM

Clark is not a Murderer, nothing could be further from the truth.

Dannyblue1

02-01-2006, 09:41 AM

Um, wasn't part of the point of this episode that Clark would be partially responsible (to a degree) for the death of someone he loved, and would therefore grow and change as a result?

I see people trying to absolve Clark of any blame in this situation, but the entire reason it was done the way it was done was to put some of the blame on Clark. It was so that Clark would have to deal with the fact that he, without meaning to, played a hand in Jonathan's death.

And, also, there's no evidence Jonathan would've died anyway. Yes, he had a weakened hard (as a consequence of Clark's actions, I might add). But people live for years with weakened hearts. I think that, the way the episode was set up, we are meant to infer that, because Clark kept saving the life of the person who was supposed to die because Clark was saved in "Mortal", the fates (or whatever) moved on to Jonathan. It's very possible that Jonathan would've still gotten into the fight with Lionel, but there's absolutely no proof that he would've had that heart attack if not for the strange workings of fate.

Yes, the storyline is not the best. But that's the storyline they've given us.

Basically, the point of the episode seemed to be about teaching Clark a lesson about messing with fate. Clark messed with fate, Jonathan died as a result, Clark is partially responsible. (Although I wouldn't call him a murderer.) If that wasn't the point of the episode, that means the episode had no point, and a character was killed off for no reason.

Sydafex7

02-01-2006, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
Um, wasn't part of the point of this episode that Clark would be partially responsible (to a degree) for the death of someone he loved, and would therefore grow and change as a result?

I see people trying to absolve Clark of any blame in this situation, but the entire reason it was done the way it was done was to put some of the blame on Clark. It was so that Clark would have to deal with the fact that he, without meaning to, played a hand in Jonathan's death.

And, also, there's no evidence Jonathan would've died anyway. Yes, he had a weakened hard (as a consequence of Clark's actions, I might add). But people live for years with weakened hearts. I think that, the way the episode was set up, we are meant to infer that, because Clark kept saving the life of the person who was supposed to die because Clark was saved in "Mortal", the fates (or whatever) moved on to Jonathan. It's very possible that Jonathan would've still gotten into the fight with Lionel, but there's absolutely no proof that he would've had that heart attack if not for the strange workings of fate.

Yes, the storyline is not the best. But that's the storyline they've given us.

Basically, the point of the episode seemed to be about teaching Clark a lesson about messing with fate. Clark messed with fate, Jonathan died as a result, Clark is partially responsible. (Although I wouldn't call him a murderer.) If that wasn't the point of the episode, that means the episode had no point, and a character was killed off for no reason.

no that was the point, you're right. But I disagree with the posters calling him a murderer and saying that they dont want this Clark Kent to become Superman because he got his own father killed.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 10:24 AM

those that are ultimately responsible......THE WRITERS!!!!!

whether or not clark kent is a murderer should never be a question.

superman, the paragon of virtue (who happened to be a cold blooded killer as a young man).

does that make sense to anyone????

the fact that an argument can be made on the side of murderer just shows how completely screwed-up the writers are.

another example of their incompetence is that lex has become more of a likable person than clark to alot of people on this board.

how completely screwed up is that???

and one last thing...IT WAS JUMP!!!!

angelfire east

02-01-2006, 11:20 AM

Flight_Without_Wings

02-01-2006, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
those that are ultimately responsible......THE WRITERS!!!!!

whether or not clark kent is a murderer should never be a question.

superman, the paragon of virtue (who happened to be a cold blooded killer as a young man).

does that make sense to anyone????

the fact that an argument can be made on the side of murderer just shows how completely screwed-up the writers are.

another example of their incompetence is that lex has become more of a likable person than clark to alot of people on this board.

how completely screwed up is that???

and one last thing...IT WAS JUMP!!!!

Let's not forget that he is also a bank robber, a burgler, destroyed private and public property, blackmail, assault, and plain old heartless just to name a few. None of which he was held accountable for.

sstray72

02-01-2006, 09:52 PM

Damn, BoSox... That IS sad. But you also forgot that Clark is dense and needs to learn the same lesson repeatedly before he understands to not be foolish before taking an action.

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by sstray72
But you also forgot that Clark is dense and needs to learn the same lesson repeatedly before he understands to not be foolish before taking an action.
DENSE? Are you joking??? This BDA's Skull is so thick his brain must be the size of a mustard seed!!!! Hey, come to think of it, he & Lana DO have something in common...

SmallvilleMan

02-01-2006, 10:03 PM

Got to Love third party perspective...

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by SmallvilleMan
Got to Love third party perspective......

We're twins, remember that. ;)

Sydafex7

02-01-2006, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by RedDwarfette
Clark would be just as much responsible for the death of Martha in this Alternate timeline you proposed as he is now for the death of Jonathan, yes. Regardless of who actually died, he basically swapped one life for the other, which doesn't seem noble :(

If Jor-el would've said "You can save Lana but Jonathan kent will die instead" what do you think he would've done? I guarantee you he wouldn't have rushed the decision (unless forced to). LIke Chloe said, he deserves to be happy.

He didn't say this. All he said was that nature will find a balance. Like I've said and others, how does that automatically mean Jonathan? There's others that nautre couldve chosen to balance it out because of his choice.

What about Lionel? In the first timeline, Lionel and Jonathan never had their meeting. In the second one they did. Nature couldve found a balance easily by having Jonathan accidently kill Lionel in the barn, which never wouldve happened in the first timeline because of Lana's wreck. But in the second timeline he made the meeting with Lionel because Clark stopped the wreck and allows nature to find a balance by having Jonathan hit Lionel, Lionel trips, falls backwards and lands on a number of sharp objects, (it is a barn) impaling him and killing him instantly. There ya go, Nature found a balance. Someone else died in Lana's place.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7

He didn't say this. All he said was that nature will find a balance. Like I've said and others, how does that automatically mean Jonathan? There's others that nautre couldve chosen to balance it out because of his choice.

clark gets his powers back = one loved one gotta die

lana = loved one = dead = debt to the universe paid

bring back lana from the dead = 0 loved ones dead to repay debt to universe = 1 loved one gotta die

reaper wanted somebody and the roulette wheel ended up with jk = loved one = dead = debt to universe paid.

it wasn't that jk was definitely going to die, it was a loved one (or a little farther out "close to him"). either way, the list was small.

plus the show got a 2 for 1 special with jk as he already owed the universe for his pact with jor-el. how tidily that cleaned up. at least the writers did something that made sense in this episode.

RedTornado1974

02-01-2006, 10:54 PM

I'm pretty much for giving Clark a break on this....as others have said, he was overcome with grief over Lana's death, and probably not thinking clearly. And also, he was not told his father would die in Lana's place. (What I was more distressed about was the fact that Clark didn't super-speed his father to the ER as he was collapsing with a heart attack right in front of him...but that's the topic for another thread). But this all does make me think how much more possibly fascinating of an episode it would have been if Clark was told by Jor-El that Jonathan would have to die in Lana's place. And how Clark would have had to make that decision....talk about the weight of the world on someone's shoulders!

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by RedTornado1974
I'm pretty much for giving Clark a break on this....as others have said, he was overcome with grief over Lana's death, and probably not thinking clearly. And also, he was not told his father would die in Lana's place. (What I was more distressed about was the fact that Clark didn't super-speed his father to the ER as he was collapsing with a heart attack right in front of him...but that's the topic for another thread). But this all does make me think how much more possibly fascinating of an episode it would have been if Clark was told by Jor-El that Jonathan would have to die in Lana's place. And how Clark would have had to make that decision....talk about the weight of the world on someone's shoulders!

why does no one consider the crystal jor-el gave him had no expiration date (at least not one mentioned by the writers, cough, cough). so in essence he didn't have to make the decision that instant.

clark knew somone had to die that was close to him. it could have been:

a. pa kent
b. ma kent
c. lana (again)
d. chloe
e. lois
f. the long gone pete
g. and because somebody mentioned it: shelby the dog

couldn't have been martha's dad as they would rahter accept money from lionel than ma kent's rich papa.

spin the wheel baby!

KRAM-el

02-01-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by RedTornado1974
But this all does make me think how much more possibly fascinating of an episode it would have been if Clark was told by Jor-El that Jonathan would have to die in Lana's place. And how Clark would have had to make that decision....talk about the weight of the world on someone's shoulders!
Another enlightened to the viability of better writing... There's still a twinge of light on the Smallville horizon! :)

ImaVirus

02-01-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
clark gets his powers back = one loved one gotta die

lana = loved one = dead = debt to the universe paid

bring back lana from the dead = 0 loved ones dead to repay debt to universe = 1 loved one gotta die

reaper wanted somebody and the roulette wheel ended up with jk = loved one = dead = debt to universe paid.

it wasn't that jk was definitely going to die, it was a loved one (or a little farther out "close to him"). either way, the list was small.

plus the show got a 2 for 1 special with jk as he already owed the universe for his pact with jor-el. how tidily that cleaned up. at least the writers did something that made sense in this episode.

I like what you are saying. I knew that his heart was bad because of that deal, but i wasn't thinking about his debt being paid. This does kill 2 birds with one stone. If JK didn't die, then someone else close to him could have. Possibly Martha. JK would most liekly die anyway with hsi bad heart, just not right away. Killing JK ends two unsettled debts. For letting him bring Clark back and for giving Clark back his powers. God, Now that I think about it, JK has got the short end of the stick, huh? It's all Clarks fault. Those darn teenagers. Become Superman already Clark, your still just a BDA. :lol:

Hugo

02-01-2006, 11:17 PM

I said, it before and i'll say it again Jor-el is the one who murdered Lana and then JK.

ImaVirus

02-01-2006, 11:18 PM

He flew... :rotfl:

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by ImaVirus
I like what you are saying. I knew that his heart was bad because of that deal, but i wasn't thinking about his debt being paid. This does kill 2 birds with one stone.
Although, the original deal, remember, was that if Jonathan got the power to bring Clark home, he would one day return him to Jor-El. It really wasn't about Jonathan's health. The heart problem was just a by-product of having those powers.

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Hugo
I said, it before and i'll say it again Jor-el is the one who murdered Lana and then JK.

well i believe jor-el warned clark that unless he left the humans behind (his loved ones) they may be hurt.

so i think in his seemingly uncaring way, he was trying to protect clark's loved ones. it's not his fault clark never listened to him.

ImaVirus

02-01-2006, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Although, the deal, remember, was that if Jonathan got the power to bring Clark home, he would one day return him to Jor-El. It really wasn't about Jonathan's health. The heart problem was just a by-product of having those powers.

True that!

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 11:22 PM

Watching Smallville

02-01-2006, 11:24 PM

Sorry about that! :( ;) That's me -- always nitpicking! :lol:

BoSoxJim

02-01-2006, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by Watching Smallville
Sorry about that! :( ;) That's me -- always nitpicking! :lol:

i am too. in my case, the nitpicker got nitpicked :o

happycamper

02-02-2006, 12:23 AM

Hi all, first post because I felt had to reply...

While Clark probably shares some bit of moral responsibility for the death of his father, there is no murder involved, nor negligent homicide, nor even manslaughter.

If someone said that they were going to kill another unless you simply patted your head three times, your refusal to do so doesn't make you legally responsible in any way. You had no part in the actual death, and one is not legally obligated to do things others want, even if the action would have been easy and cost nothing.

By the same token, if a terrorist or kidnapper says to not rescue someone, or else they'd just kill someone else, there is no obligation to do so, and no legal responsibility in any case.

Clark had the choice of saving Lana, with a threat that an outside force would bring everything back to a balance if he chose to proceed. He did so, and had no hand in the subsequent death of his father.

In any case, Lana herself was an innocent, and saving her was itself a positive, and the only cost was the possibility that something bad might happen. That it did was not Clark's fault.

Of course, he won't see it that way, for very understandable reasons. Chalk it up to a sort of nasty fate very different from that that we normally apply to our own selves and our own lives.

BoSoxJim

02-02-2006, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by happycamper
Hi all, first post because I felt had to reply...

While Clark probably shares some bit of moral responsibility for the death of his father, there is no murder involved, nor negligent homicide, nor even manslaughter.

If someone said that they were going to kill another unless you simply patted your head three times, your refusal to do so doesn't make you legally responsible in any way. You had no part in the actual death, and one is not legally obligated to do things others want, even if the action would have been easy and cost nothing.

By the same token, if a terrorist or kidnapper says to not rescue someone, or else they'd just kill someone else, there is no obligation to do so, and no legal responsibility in any case.

Clark had the choice of saving Lana, with a threat that an outside force would bring everything back to a balance if he chose to proceed. He did so, and had no hand in the subsequent death of his father.

In any case, Lana herself was an innocent, and saving her was itself a positive, and the only cost was the possibility that something bad might happen. That it did was not Clark's fault.

Of course, he won't see it that way, for very understandable reasons. Chalk it up to a sort of nasty fate very different from that that we normally apply to our own selves and our own lives.

don't make me pull out my equation!!!!

clois1938

02-02-2006, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by happycamper
By the same token, if a terrorist or kidnapper says to not rescue someone, or else they'd just kill someone else, there is no obligation to do so, and no legal responsibility in any case.
Terrorist/universe isn't an apt comparison. There is no guarantee with a terrorist where as the universe seeking balance is taken as a law of nature. For example, if someone doesn't think they have to obey the law of gravity, they find out pretty soon that running off a cliff is not conducive to living a long life lol. And that would make them both stupid and responsible.

KRAM-el

02-02-2006, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by clois1938
Terrorist/universe isn't an apt comparison. There is no guarantee with a terrorist where as the universe seeking balance is taken as a law of nature. For example, if someone doesn't think they have to obey the law of gravity, they find out pretty soon that running off a cliff is not conducive to living a long life lol. And that would make them both stupid and responsible.
We have a winner, BoSox! Another twin sister! The family just keeps growing and growing... :eek:

BoSoxJim

02-02-2006, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by happycamper
Clark had the choice of saving Lana, with a threat that an outside force would bring everything back to a balance if he chose to proceed. He did so, and had no hand in the subsequent death of his father.

In any case, Lana herself was an innocent, and saving her was itself a positive, and the only cost was the possibility that something bad might happen. That it did was not Clark's fault.

Had Clark reported back to the FOS as he promised Jor-el he would, then this would all be a moot point. However, he didn't so because of his broken promise, he is responsible for the events that took place in ep. 100.

Clark knew a loved one had to die. That is not some new revelation. When he got his powers back, he was told it would happen.

So it was Lana or someone else and he knew it.

I hate the writing as the true clark kent would never have done these things.

Originally posted by KRAM-el
We have a winner, BoSox! Another twin sister! The family just keeps growing and growing... :eek:

Feel the love bro! Feel the love!

Sydafex7

02-02-2006, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
I hate the writing as the true clark kent would never have done these things.

Who's the true Clark Kent? The one from the movies? the one from the other televison shows? The one from the comics? All versions of Clark Kent have done things that we could all say "Oh Clark Kent would never do that..."

BoSoxJim

02-02-2006, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
Who's the true Clark Kent? The one from the movies? the one from the other televison shows? The one from the comics? All versions of Clark Kent have done things that we could all say "Oh Clark Kent would never do that..."

The true Clark Kent would not be considered an uncaring, cold-blooded killer. I'm pretty sure all of the sources you mention, do not portray him as such.

The true Clark Kent is not as dense as the SV writers make him out to be. The one that thinks he can get Lana back and nothing really bad will happen.

DO you really want to get me going????
:eek:

I gues the Clark Kent I am referring to is the common sense Clark Kent. The self-sacrificing noble young lad who makes mistakes now and then but can still be envisioned as Superman one day!

Sydafex7

02-02-2006, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
The true Clark Kent would not be considered an uncaring, cold-blooded killer. I'm pretty sure all of the sources you mention, do not portray him as such.

The true Clark Kent is not as dense as the SV writers make him out to be. The one that thinks he can get Lana back and nothing really bad will happen.

DO you really want to get me going????
:eek:

I gues the Clark Kent I am referring to is the common sense Clark Kent. The self-sacrificing noble young lad who makes mistakes now and then but can still be envisioned as Superman one day!

read the comics...

Clark on Smallville is not an uncaring cold-blooded killer, no matter what you all say. IF he was uncaring he wouldve said f*ck it all way back in the first season.

The fact is, he has never intentially killed anyone because he felt like or because he knows he can. IF he has killed anyone is has been by mistake or while he was under the influence of something.

"Cold blooded killers" dont think twice about murdering people. They just do it and ain't afraid of the result.

Clark is pretty damn far from a cold blooded killer. All of you saying he is are being pretty extream and you know it. Did he make a mistake? Sure. the 100th was all about teaching him te ultimate lesson. IS he a straight up cold blooded killer? No.

BoSoxJim

02-02-2006, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
read the comics...

Clark on Smallville is not an uncaring cold-blooded killer, no matter what you all say. IF he was uncaring he wouldve said f*ck it all way back in the first season.

The fact is, he has never intentially killed anyone because he felt like or because he knows he can. IF he has killed anyone is has been by mistake or while he was under the influence of something.

"Cold blooded killers" dont think twice about murdering people. They just do it and ain't afraid of the result.

Clark is pretty damn far from a cold blooded killer. All of you saying he is are being pretty extream and you know it. Did he make a mistake? Sure. the 100th was all about teaching him te ultimate lesson. IS he a straight up cold blooded killer? No.

i have never said clark is a cold blooded killer. however, if you look at the name of this thread, and read the posts, then you will see the writers have screwed up royally.

that's what i mean about comon sense clark kent. it's common sense that the future paragon of virtue would not be a heartless, cold-blooded killer.

the fact that the writers have so many people beleiving otherwise is what originally got me so angered in the first place.

the sad fact is, the writers have so botched things up, that a case can actually be made against clark and that angers me even more!

all i can say is, thank god for ep. 101 later today. something good has to come from that????:rolleyes:

kal3l

02-02-2006, 02:21 AM

I dont think that the writers have made him out to be a murderer or killer, infact I dont know where all this selfish Clark nonsense comes from. Surely he's selfish in a normal teenage boy way (has needs and wants things), but I just dont see where people are getting the thing where he picks lives.

All I seen in this Episode was Clark saving everyone he could, I certainly didn't see him pick or choose who to save, JK was dead before anyone of them knew what was happening.

I seen my dad have an Heart Attack (he's still alive) and it certainly wasn't anything like JK's. JK just staggered into the driveway, weren't even holding his heart, then Clark and Martha got out to see what was wrong and he died.

Clark was already out of "go back to go" crystals.

Originally posted by BoSoxJim
well i believe jor-el warned clark that unless he left the humans behind (his loved ones) they may be hurt.

so i think in his seemingly uncaring way, he was trying to protect clark's loved ones. it's not his fault clark never listened to him.

My opinion is that if Clark left behind the humans, then he would find it harder to relate to them and Superman wouldnt be the same guy.
I think in any form of the Superman mythos, the one thing that remains the same is that Supes is the good guy he his because of the way he was brought up.

Even has an adult superman, he hasn't "left humans behind", he clearly still cares for lois, who he eventually marries.

BoSoxJim

02-02-2006, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by kal3l
I dont think that the writers have made him out to be a murderer or killer, infact I dont know where all this selfish Clark nonsense comes from. Surely he's selfish in a normal teenage boy way (has needs and wants things), but I just dont see where people are getting the thing where he picks lives.

ok, since i'm never sleeping again....

if the writer's didn't do it then where did it all come from????

if you want to see where people get the idea of clark picking lana over another loved one then you need to read the posts on the forum.

i don't have the strength to give my take on it anymore.

Originally posted by kal3l

My opinion is that if Clark left behind the humans, then he would find it harder to relate to them and Superman wouldnt be the same guy.
I think in any form of the Superman mythos, the one thing that remains the same is that Supes is the good guy he his because of the way he was brought up.

Even has an adult superman, he hasn't "left humans behind", he clearly still cares for lois, who he eventually marries.

ok, i'm not arguing with your opinion.

i like that he hasn't left his human relationships behind. however, the villains view this as a weakness they can exploit, which is why clark didn't tell lana the 2nd time.

jor-el was trying to teach him this.

btw, it was a jump and not flight....:p

my3cats

02-02-2006, 05:05 PM

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that if given the choice between letting Lana die and saving the entire rest of the universe from total aniliation...the universe would be toast and there would be nothing left but Lana floating around in the empty void nattering on about how everyone and everything abandoned her.

Daphne

02-02-2006, 05:14 PM

:)

You funny.

Kris-El

02-04-2006, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by my3cats
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that if given the choice between letting Lana die and saving the entire rest of the universe from total aniliation...the universe would be toast and there would be nothing left but Lana floating around in the empty void nattering on about how everyone and everything abandoned her.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

LadyZaraKent

02-05-2006, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by PeteM
Don't understand all of this Lana bashing.

Personally, I hated this episode. Always had since I always felt it was ratings gimmick.

Leaving that aside, regardless if whether Clark chose to save Lana, there was a strong likelihood that Jonathon was going to die very soon, if not that night. He was on his way to confront Lionel.

Neither Lionel nor his bad heart was going away. Could have keeled over at any time.

It was not like his altercation with Lionel was anymore physically taxing than working on the farm. Or mentally taxing as his new job as a senator.

Yes Jonathan had a bad heart, let's remember how it got that way in the first place. Jonathan was endowed with Superpowers by Jor-El for the express purpose of stopping Clark's rampages after the last time, Clark willingly took mind altering drugs. (A.k.a He deliberately donned Red Kryptonite, knowing full well what the affects would be.) Another example of how Clark thinks of no one but himself. Is he responsible for Jonathan’s death, you bet he is! Clearly all this episode shows is that Clark hasn't grown up at all since then. Clark is no Superman, and there's no way to believe he ever will be.

jdot

02-05-2006, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by LadyZaraKent
Yes Jonathan had a bad heart, let's remember how it got that way in the first place. Jonathan was endowed with Superpowers by Jor-El for the express purpose of stopping Clark's rampages after the last time, Clark willingly took mind altering drugs. (A.k.a He deliberately donned Red Kryptonite, knowing full well what the affects would be.) Another example of how Clark thinks of no one but himself. Is he responsible for Jonathan’s death, you bet he is! Clearly all this episode shows is that Clark hasn't grown up at all since then. Clark is no Superman, and there's no way to believe he ever will be.

Yeah, Clark was so self centered and heartless when he ran away from home after being basically blamed by Jonathan for causing Martha to lose her baby. I mean, how much of a jerk do you have to be to run away from home when everyone around you is currently indicating that you've destroyed their life?

/sarcasm

He took the RedK to escape his pain and grief. It didn't work, as evidenced by the phone booth scene and his eventual return to the farm. Jonathan made the decision to not trust his own son and went to Jor-El to get him back, making a deal to give Clark up when Jor-El asked for him in the process.

Both of them screwed up, but Clark isn't responsible for Jonathan's choice to make a deal with Jor-El in the first place. Unless you mean to say that Jonathan can't be held responsible for his own decisions.

Daphne

02-05-2006, 08:29 PM

Very interesting jdot. Another opinion has joined the thread.

Fox

02-06-2006, 11:37 AM

Clark a murder... NO.

He's a Young man. I can't fault him for his actions. His actions were indeed influenced. Clark maybe Krytonian, but his point of perspective and thought is that of a human. He's Not cold, calculating.. he's a being with emotions, and as anyone who's experienced that kind of loss will tell you. Emotions can be completly overwhelming. Wiping out any logic as the mind grasps to any thread of hope for fixing that which caused the pain.

as another already pointed out. While Jor-El in his usual roundabout way stated "that if she lives another must die", but Clark was so emotional all he really heard was "doing this will save her"

And Jor-el did state clearly "there was one trial you've yet to face"

he didn't say what the trial was. Obviously it was a trial designed to show and teach clark that he Can't change fate. That death is a part of life. That no matter what you do. there are times you Can't change things regardless what power you have.

That has been clarks major flaw to date. He's been unwilling to accept things and used his powers to change things.

These events have shown Clark that every decision he makes has a concequence. That in using his gifts he must decide wisely, ala "with great power comes great responsibility"

It's like calling Peter Parker a murder because his actions lead to the death of his uncle. .. Like Parker, Clark didn't know what would happen, only that by taking this action he could redo the day and try to undo his actions that he felt lead to Lana's death.

Clark is NOT superman. Not yet. He is still maturing.. Learning HOW to be the man he will become. and Human's Learn by trail and error. There is no handbook. Like clarks powers, Life is the same way.. it comes along and we then must figure out how to make use of it.

This even in Clarks young life removes the Last... "safty". He now must find out how to stand on his own and be the man his father saw in him. This was the point Jonathan and martha had raised him towards. the point ALL parents raise thier kids for.

The point where they let go of thier parents and make thier own decisions, for good or worse.

Clark has now been forced to that point.. and according to Silver age mythos (which the films used), the death Jolted Clark into the last steps to become who he became, the great hero.

I liked Johnanthan and always have throught the myrad of mythos. without Johnathan Clark would NOT have become the hero he is destined to become.

Personally I think it's pompus and arrogent and immature to label Clark a Murder because of his bad choices. Expecially as we are viewing them as Outsiders. We are not there, we are not inside his head. The ONLY people who could truly judge anyone in that situation would be someone who's been in there.

Grief is a part of life. it's something He has yet to experience, truly overwhelming emotions. The luckiest humans are those that never have to go thru that.

Clark vested all his emotions, all his dreams, hopes and life into his future with lana. To see her die, knowing he could of saved her if he'd been just a BIT faster, or kept his secret. The worst kind of grief/guilt is that found in the knowledge that you had the power to save those you love, but couldn't.

IN any rational court, if charges were filed Clark would be found Not guilty by reason of mental defect.. the defect being he'd JUST Lost his fiancee in a accident, and was overwhelmed with grief. He was NOT in his right mind. Even in the most recent mythos (which i'll cite because only in the bronze age is Clark treated like a fallable being who Can make mistakes), there have been times which long into his tights carreer he has been overcome with grief. IE the time he thought lois was killed by a villian. His initial emotional reaction was to rip the villien apart and bloody near did, only stopping himself at the last moment.

Even Superman isn't immune to human emotions... But clark is just a young man, still trying to come to terms with who he is and where he's going.

Being Superman was not programmed into his soul, it is his destiny. But it's the journy and the mistakes we make along the way that make us grow into that destiny.

that is all.