Why Did It Have To Be Someone Clark Loved?

[Praxis]

Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?

If Jor-El was choosing who to take the life from, why didn't he take it from Lionel or Lex, for example, or some old guy on his deathbed, or some murderer on death row?


If it was nature seeking a balance, then how does nature know who Clark loves?

Also, it seems it doesn't care about species, as here we have a human dying for a kryptonian. Then, why couldn't Shelby have died as the 'person Clark loves'? :P

Perhaps if Clark had superspeeded Jonathan to the hospital, Shelby would have been next.

[SteveS]

Firstly you have to realize that it was not Jor-el per se that took life. Jor-el is implying that there is a force in the universe, call it destiny, fate, or nature, outside of human understanding, that exists and creates a balance through out the universe. Clark willingly interfered with this force (that is beyond Jor-el or Superman) therefore, according to Jor-el own words, there is in essence a penalty that will befall Clark. He just ignored Jor-el's warning once again and nature/fate/destiny maintained a balance by Jonathan dying.

[Superman790]

1. Lex obviously can't be the one
2. Lionel still has more to add to the series
3. an old man on his death bed would not restore the balance because that guy would have died soon anyway

by restoring the balance I believe they would have to take someone who wasn't supposed to die for awhile (Lana) and replace that person for Clark.

It had to be someone he loved because if it was just some bum off the street that no one knew or cared about, but wasn't going to die for another 20 years, what would Clark learn?

I believe Jor-El is trying to make the point that everything Clark does affects everyone around him, including the ones he loves. So by taking the life of someone he cared for would teach him to be wary of his actions and to think them through.

Which, if you read my thread about him never thinking things through, he still doesn't get.

[j-kent]

lol the nature was Clark's "destiny"...Everyone here has the valid point...this is the lesson Clark was learn to know what valuing and protecting life truly is...if lex or someone were to be taken, it wouldn't be life-altering for Clark...

This would be Jor-El's way of saying not to take life for granted, and to truly value life is to lose one so close.

[Eh,Man?You-El?]

In "Reckoning" Jor-El made it (sorta) clear that "nature demands a balance" when someone changes history and implies that someone "close to" the person who INITIATES the change will suffer.
If that's the case, since JOR-EL brought Clark back from death (changing history) then someone "close to" Jor-El himself should have died. Consider - if "Nature" must balance lives based on someone "close to" the person who DIED (as Jor-El implied when he brought back Clark in "Hidden") then when Clark brought back Lana, then someone close to LANA should have been killed off - Aunt NELL maybe, but probably NOT Jon Kent!

Taking this further, since LANA was initially killed in "Reckoning", in exchange for Clark, it means that JOR-EL loved LANA (just like every other male on Smallville)!
Jor-El is a horny old goat pining away for Lana's great aunt Louise as shown in "Relic" (and betraying the memory of Clark's mother, Lara).

Worse than this, since Jor-El won't admit to Clark his own illicit attraction to Clark's girlfriend , it leaves Clark with the vague sense that he's to blame for everything. In this way Jor-El betrays his own son in a cruel, petty, selfish and cowardly way!

[fa8362]

"Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?"

Because the writers think we're stupid and wanted to milk that inane premise for months. Here's hoping the idiots get their termination notices today.

[Eh,Man?You-El?]

In "Reckoning" Jor-El made it (sorta) clear that "nature demands a balance" when someone changes history and implies that someone "close to" the person who INITIATES the change will suffer.
If that's the case, since JOR-EL brought Clark back from death (changing history) then someone "close to" Jor-El himself should have died. Consider - if "Nature" must balance lives based on someone "close to" the person who DIED (as Jor-El implied when he brought back Clark) then when Clark brought back Lana, then someone close to LANA should have been killed off - Aunt NELL maybe, but probably NOT Jon Kent!

Taking this further, since LANA was initially killed in exchange for Clark, it means that Jor-El LOVED LANA (just like every other male on Smallville). Jor-El is a horny old goat pining away for Lana's great aunt Louise (and betraying the memory of Clark's mother, Lara).

[myankskent]

You know what, it has been said that Jonathan's heart has been weak for a while now, but what about Lionel's? JorEl took over Lionel's body to break Clark out of the hospital. Lionel also has a seizure during the finale last season. How is it that Lionel doesn't have a scratch on him and Jonathan is all of a sudden a weak, old man. That is ridiculous if you ask me. Lionel needs to die, which brings me to my next question. Gough said that "another major player is on their way out too." What does this mean? Is Lionel going to die or maybe Chloe will move away? I'd like to know when this is going to happen.

[F-Stop Blues]

Originally posted by myankskent
You know what, it has been said that Jonathan's heart has been weak for a while now, but what about Lionel's? JorEl took over Lionel's body to break Clark out of the hospital. Lionel also has a seizure during the finale last season. How is it that Lionel doesn't have a scratch on him and Jonathan is all of a sudden a weak, old man. That is ridiculous if you ask me. Lionel needs to die, which brings me to my next question. Gough said that "another major player is on their way out too." What does this mean? Is Lionel going to die or maybe Chloe will move away? I'd like to know when this is going to happen.

Lionel is too magnificent to let some stupid heart slow him down.

[fa8362]

Gough said that "another major player is on their way out too."

Hopefully, he was talking about himself and his cadre of idiot writers.

[Mr.Sark]

"Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?"

They don't like him to be happy for one day. It's stupid how much sh*t comes his way. I waiting for the moment that Clark starts drinking bottles of prozac pills.

[Kgatc13]

WHen did he say that?

[LuthorRequiem2]

"Because the writers think we're stupid and wanted to milk that inane premise for months. Here's hoping the idiots get their termination notices today."

Firstly, the writing staff at "Smallville" is of the highest quality, when you consider some of the trash that's currently on television. The writers are in fact SO good that they've written material intriguing enough to make us fans feel the need to discuss it on a message board! The writers continue to be blamed for lack of contiuity, etc., but that is not all their fault, and this season, they have REALLY fixed things up; continuity has been restored and is possibly better than ever, characters are written with deep meaning, Lex's dark side is balanced out well with his struggling good side (instead of the writers being stupid and just jumping the gun and making him evil), Clark's actions and reactions have consequences, Clark is written as more mature in many respects, dialogue is very epic and cinematic, and through all the seriousness, the bits of humor the writers provide are a good balance.

With all these great qualities, I don't see why you're insulting the writers so much. If you have to insult them, at least give good, logical reasons, rather than resorting to name-calling.

I'm sorry if that sounded at all harsh. I'm sure you have your reasons. My only gripe is that you basically just called the writers a bunch of hacks without explaining why.

[j-kent]

Originally posted by myankskent
You know what, it has been said that Jonathan's heart has been weak for a while now, but what about Lionel's? JorEl took over Lionel's body to break Clark out of the hospital. Lionel also has a seizure during the finale last season. How is it that Lionel doesn't have a scratch on him and Jonathan is all of a sudden a weak, old man. That is ridiculous if you ask me. Lionel needs to die, which brings me to my next question. Gough said that "another major player is on their way out too." What does this mean? Is Lionel going to die or maybe Chloe will move away? I'd like to know when this is going to happen.

I don't remember lionel having a heart problem...i think it was a liver or something...but in any case...in the episode "transference" when lionel took over CK's body and then went back to his...a little something from CK (some essence or energy) was given to lionel's body and fully cured his disease.

[No-El]

Originally posted by Praxis
Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?

If Jor-El was choosing who to take the life from, why didn't he take it from Lionel or Lex, for example, or some old guy on his deathbed, or some murderer on death row?


If it was nature seeking a balance, then how does nature know who Clark loves?

Also, it seems it doesn't care about species, as here we have a human dying for a kryptonian. Then, why couldn't Shelby have died as the 'person Clark loves'? :P

Perhaps if Clark had superspeeded Jonathan to the hospital, Shelby would have been next.


It had to be a person Clark could humanly love AND relate to for Jor-El to serve a lesson of disobience to his son Kal-El/Clark!

[fa8362]

"Firstly, the writing staff at "Smallville" is of the highest quality"

Are you Al or Miles?

[Praxis]

Originally posted by SteveS
Firstly you have to realize that it was not Jor-el per se that took life. Jor-el is implying that there is a force in the universe, call it destiny, fate, or nature, outside of human understanding, that exists and creates a balance through out the universe. Clark willingly interfered with this force (that is beyond Jor-el or Superman) therefore, according to Jor-el own words, there is in essence a penalty that will befall Clark. He just ignored Jor-el's warning once again and nature/fate/destiny maintained a balance by Jonathan dying.

I realize that, but if it seeks a balance, that balance being another death, why must that death be a human that Clark loves? Why can't it be someone he hates- why can't it be a dog he loves?


Originally posted by No-El
It had to be a person Clark could humanly love AND relate to for Jor-El to serve a lesson of disobience to his son Kal-El/Clark!

Except that Jor-El was not directly killing them.

[clois1938]

I agree, it didn't have to be someone that Clark loved at all. The lesson should have shown that Clark needs to care even if it is just a random innocent that dies.

The problem with SV Clark though is that he's such a self-absorbed dumbass that unless it was someone close to him that died, there would be no hope of him embracing his destiny.

[All about Clark]

Please remember that Clark doesn't know his destiny. He doesn't know the big picture.

I'm frustrated with people giving judgements about Clark because they know his destiny; if you didn't, I don't think you would be so hard on him. He's young and just trying to live his life.

I think we'd all make better decisions if we knew the result of our life.

[myownwoman]

Because if it was not someone Clark loves, the death of that person would not impacted Clark so much, that all his beliefs about life, what he thought he knew was truth, and what his father tried so hard to instill in Clark, none of that would have mattered. Jor-El knew what he was doing when he took away his father, he wanted Clark to realize that not all in life is easily understood, sometimes the hardest lessons to learn has to be one that is also during the most difficult time in his life. Jor-El WANTED Clark to learn that Jor-El meant serious business. Sure Clark is angry, but I am sure now he truly understands. We will see a seismic shift from all previous episodes onto the future ones. Clark has changed, he has discovered something profound and deep in his father's passing. He is going to make his father proud of him. Now it's up to him to show everybody that he is a changed man and he knows what is important to him.

Bottom line: Sometimes life can only be learned through death.

[No-El]

Originally posted by myownwoman
Because if it was not someone Clark loves, the death of that person would not impacted Clark so much, that all his beliefs about life, what he thought he knew was truth, and what his father tried so hard to instill in Clark, none of that would have mattered. Jor-El knew what he was doing when he took away his father, he wanted Clark to realize that not all in life is easily understood, sometimes the hardest lessons to learn has to be one that is also during the most difficult time in his life. Jor-El WANTED Clark to learn that Jor-El meant serious business. Sure Clark is angry, but I am sure now he truly understands. We will see a seismic shift from all previous episodes onto the future ones. Clark has changed, he has discovered something profound and deep in his father's passing. He is going to make his father proud of him. Now it's up to him to show everybody that he is a changed man and he knows what is important to him.

Bottom line: Sometimes life can only be learned through death.


True indeed!

All that is left is for the story to unfold step by step and how you respond to each step is up to any and all of us who watch!

[clois1938]

Originally posted by All about Clark
I'm frustrated with people giving judgements about Clark because they know his destiny; if you didn't, I don't think you would be so hard on him. He's young and just trying to live his life.
I don't think this is a thread about judging Clark. This is a thread highlighting one of the biggest plotholes. If the universe seeks balance, then it is a contradiction for Jor-El to say that Clark will lose a loved one.

[Dimensio]

Why did it have to be someone that Clark loves?

The writers lack imagination and ingenuity.

They could have left it at "someone close to you will die", which would leave Clark with the belief that someone he loves would soon be taken from him, and then in a future episode some FotW -- not even necessarily a Kryptonite-enhanced one -- has a sudden heart attack and dies while standing next to Clark.

But they had to follow the themes of the movies and kill of Johnathan Kent even though John and Martha are both still alive and well in the current comic series.

[myownwoman]

JK is such a great character and added a lot of volume and richness to the series. He will leave a huge impact that will reverberate throughout Clark's circle. He may be gone physically, but he is still there spiritually.

[BoSoxJim]

Originally posted by Praxis


Also, it seems it doesn't care about species, as here we have a human dying for a kryptonian. Then, why couldn't Shelby have died as the 'person Clark loves'? :P

Perhaps if Clark had superspeeded Jonathan to the hospital, Shelby would have been next.

killing fictional people is ok in TV World. killing a fictional dog is just cruel. :mad:

my wife would stand outside of the WB demading justice (me too);)

[KRAM-el]

Originally posted by BoSoxJim


my wife would stand outside of the WB demading justice (me too);)
MY wife would initiate a lynch party at the WB head offices... :mad: I'd bring the rope...

[UpandAtom]

I think the reason it had to be someone close to Clark was because they would know Clark's secret and know why the transfer had to occur. Jor-El must've chosen Jonathan because he was the weakest of the herd and it was easy to kill him off.

[Jaygog 2]

Originally posted by UpandAtom
I think the reason it had to be someone close to Clark was because they would know Clark's secret and know why the transfer had to occur. Jor-El must've chosen Jonathan because he was the weakest of the herd and it was easy to kill him off.

Well, Lana (the second time around) and Lois didnt know his secret and they were still in danger.

[UpandAtom]

I don't believe that Lois was ever in danger. Jor-El said that someone close to Clark would die. Lois isn't close to Clark. He despises her. Her being in danger was part of the Butterfly Effect when Lana didn't save her in time. Even if Lois died, I doubt the circle of life would've been completed.

[moe2death]

Originally posted by Praxis
Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?

If Jor-El was choosing who to take the life from, why didn't he take it from Lionel or Lex, for example, or some old guy on his deathbed, or some murderer on death row?


If it was nature seeking a balance, then how does nature know who Clark loves?

Also, it seems it doesn't care about species, as here we have a human dying for a kryptonian. Then, why couldn't Shelby have died as the 'person Clark loves'? :P

Perhaps if Clark had superspeeded Jonathan to the hospital, Shelby would have been next. its a simple answer:it was clarks punishment for disobeying jor el

[watcher4]

Just sad that SV had to lose such a wonderful character! Such is life:\

[Deana]

Originally posted by Praxis
Why did it have to be someone Clark loved that die?

If Jor-El was choosing who to take the life from, why didn't he take it from Lionel or Lex, for example, or some old guy on his deathbed, or some murderer on death row?


If it was nature seeking a balance, then how does nature know who Clark loves?

Also, it seems it doesn't care about species, as here we have a human dying for a kryptonian. Then, why couldn't Shelby have died as the 'person Clark loves'? :P

Perhaps if Clark had superspeeded Jonathan to the hospital, Shelby would have been next.

When people died that Clark didn't love, for him to learn a lesson, the lesson did not stick. So it had to be someone Clark loved so the lesson could be edged into his empty skull!