Wait, this actually makes sense... [Archive] - KSiteTV Television & Movie Forums

xrayvision

01-27-2006, 09:23 PM

I don't understand how the prophecy was met by Clark causing it.

His main action in Arrival that led to this whole thing was taking Lana to the hospital, which cost him his powers. I still don't know if Jorel did this as a punishment or if this was a side effect of the unfinished training that he started at the FOS. But obviously he and Lana started going out as a result of meeting her at the hospital. Had he continued his training, Lana would have probably been through with Clark and not been running away from Lex to have been killed in that 1st scene. So this part seems to tie into the prophecy.

But, as many people have mentioned, JK would have died soon anyway. How is his loss of life related to any of the events in the above paragraph? He was in bad shape. If Clark would have stayed at the FOS, JK would have probably died sooner since he would be doing all the work at the farm and would have strained himself more.

I don't buy this whole balance of the universe theory. If that were true, then Jorel is a hypocrite for saying that Kryptonians can't play God since he would have this death by taking away CK's powers.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Jorel did play God and replaced the energy he revived Clark with from energy he took out of JK as part of that deal that was made in Exile (when JK replied yes after being asked if he would do anything to bring back Clark). This deal came into play many times, and it may have done this one final time. And if that's the case, then JK would have kept this energy since Clark would have never died, thus putting Clark to blame.

Even with this though, it still doesn't make total sense. Clark is Kryptonian, and he would have been revived by solar rays anyway. It's unrealistic that he didn't get his powers back before he died. Maybe the urgency of that nuclear missile situation made Jorel revive Clark with his power instead of solar rays since it would have taken too long.

I don't know, but it's annoying for this prophecy to have been mentioned so many times only to have the pieces not fall entirely in place.

Summers

01-27-2006, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Anomalyster
It doesn't really fail, Clark altered the second timeline by telling Chloe to tail Lana that day. Chloe is the reason Lois didn't fall off the stool and die (or at least become seriously wounded from electrocution) in the first timeline.

Nope. Lana was the reason actually. Lana is the one that caught Lois from falling off the stool to get the snacks. During that time Chloe was at the Daily Planet talking to Clark. That was the first timeline.

Anomalyster

01-27-2006, 09:33 PM

Yeah you're right, I'm not paying attention to what I'm writing.

KRAM-el

01-27-2006, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by xrayvision

I don't know, but it's annoying for this prophecy to have been mentioned so many times only to have the pieces not fall entirely in place.

Great theory -- but I have this one addition that has been forgotten (I think)... & that is another of CK's bad choices in the desire of the use of Red Kryptonite to escape the reality & pressures of his destiny (just like an alcoholic does w/ booze) that forced JK to Jor-El in the first place which caused his heart malady originally (due to the power transfer). Yes, Jor-El only did it because JK promised "to return Kal-El to him" but it was Clark's poor choice that set the whole thing into motion in the first place. Regardless of WHO died, the blame still trickles down to CK no matter what route it takes. Clark made a CONSCIOUS CHOICE to put on the Red Kryptonite ring. Conscious, but not WISE. What Clark needs now is wisdom. I still think this lesson falls far short... Just MHO, that's all.

Mr._Action

01-27-2006, 10:05 PM

To: KRAM-el

If you think like that then it Jor-El and Lara's fault for sending him to earth. Or Martha and Jonathon's for taking Clark in, Or Lionel for making the adoption happen, or Lana because she killed Genevieve and that triggered the 2nd Meteor Shower that caused Clark to choose to save Lana and loose his power. Or it's the dude that shot Clark in the first place. Everyone of these events lead to what happened. Like Clark telling Lana leading to Lois not falling and being electrocuted. It's never just one person or thing. Everyone could be to blame therefore, no one can be blamed because everyone had a had in it. True, Clark did go back into time to save Lana but he did everything different and the same thing almost happened. It wasn't Lana knowing that killed her it happened because she went to Lex. That event, despite the reason for happening, caused her to be on that highway and not notice the bus. Clark saving her caused Jonathon to drive by and immediately talk to Lionel which killed him. Even if both Lois and Lana were killed it could of also of lead to Jonathon's death.

protege

01-27-2006, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by spideyfan
Here is my thinking. Death first chooses Lois to die and 'balance the universe' as Jor-El puts it. Clark stops this by saving her from electrocution.

Next death chooses Lana. Again Clark stops this by stopping the bus that will hit her car.

Last death chooses Jonathan, and since CK wasnt their, death got its victim. Had CK not saved Lois, Lois would be the one to go in this episode and JK would still be alive for god knows how long (we know Lois cant go though, she is the future Mrs. Kent :) )

Had Lois died Jonathan would have not went to the barn and instead to the hospital to see the developments on Lois. Had Lana died again JK would have stopped to ease his son's pain as he did the first time around.

All these actions are controlled by Clark, so in essance, CK doing the "right thing" which JK always taught him to do ends up as the reasoning for taking JKs' life. I dont think JK would mind dying this way. He died becuase his son made the hard choices when it counted but even he couldnt save everyone in the end.

Poor CK, poor poor CK. He better put his game face on and grow the hell up now.

Am I just rambling or does this make some sense?
I'd like to think Clark would've caught on after lana almost bought it- i don't remember the Lois bit, but Jor-el told him all along that someone's life was going to be exchanged for his, and Jor el is not someone who will be denied. i just don't know how much of a hand he had in how the whole thing played out. i was a little surprised at how calm Martha was, when Clark finally explained Jor-el's "deal" to her- maybe the kents had this discussion off camera? Or did Clark really not know what "No going back"meant? Clark didn't want to choose ANYBODY- I can't believe he'd rationalize it as "the least painful, or whatever."

Originally posted by xrayvision
I don't understand how the prophecy was met by Clark causing it.

His main action in Arrival that led to this whole thing was taking Lana to the hospital, which cost him his powers. I still don't know if Jorel did this as a punishment or if this was a side effect of the unfinished training that he started at the FOS. But obviously he and Lana started going out as a result of meeting her at the hospital. Had he continued his training, Lana would have probably been through with Clark and not been running away from Lex to have been killed in that 1st scene. So this part seems to tie into the prophecy.

But, as many people have mentioned, JK would have died soon anyway. How is his loss of life related to any of the events in the above paragraph? He was in bad shape. If Clark would have stayed at the FOS, JK would have probably died sooner since he would be doing all the work at the farm and would have strained himself more.

I don't buy this whole balance of the universe theory. If that were true, then Jorel is a hypocrite for saying that Kryptonians can't play God since he would have this death by taking away CK's powers.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Jorel did play God and replaced the energy he revived Clark with from energy he took out of JK as part of that deal that was made in Exile (when JK replied yes after being asked if he would do anything to bring back Clark). This deal came into play many times, and it may have done this one final time. And if that's the case, then JK would have kept this energy since Clark would have never died, thus putting Clark to blame.

Even with this though, it still doesn't make total sense. Clark is Kryptonian, and he would have been revived by solar rays anyway. It's unrealistic that he didn't get his powers back before he died. Maybe the urgency of that nuclear missile situation made Jorel revive Clark with his power instead of solar rays since it would have taken too long.

I don't know, but it's annoying for this prophecy to have been mentioned so many times only to have the pieces not fall entirely in place.
I think the fact that he didn't have his powers was the reason that that solar rays probably wouldn't have worked, or they just would've gone with that one, and not this "life for a life' stuff. He wasn't Kryptonian anymore, he was human.

Timester

01-28-2006, 05:17 AM

scoobycookies

01-28-2006, 10:15 AM

You're assuming that death chose Lana first in timeline 1 when actually death chose Lois first in BOTH timelines. It's just that Lois is saved no matter which timeline it is because Fate will not allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

You have to think about what the purpose of Lois falling was. Prior to reaching for the cookies in timeline 1, Lois had turned on the water in the sink. And Lois was already falling, when Lana stepped in to catch her and push her back up on the stool. If the fall in timeline 1 had completed, Lois would have died by electrocution as suggested in timeline 2, just as car accident and heartattack remain the causes of potential death for lana and jonathon in both timelines.

In the first timeline, Lana saves Lois from electrocution by stepping in to catch her fall. In the second timeline, Clark saves her from electrocution by lifting her off the water.

The purpose of showing Lois as the first target in both timelines is to show that the universe very much knows that Lois is Clark's greatest love. The purpose of showing that Lois is saved no matter which timeline their in, is to show that Fate will NOT allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

Lois, Lana and Jonathon were all in danger and someone did die in both timelines. Lana and Jonathon were meant to die in their respective timelines where as Lois was not meant to die in either timeline.

gloria

01-28-2006, 11:28 AM

hey if lois died maybe clana could've been in the future...

but oh well shouda woulda coulda isnt gonna change any thing now... :\ ..unfortunately

nice thinking though spideyfan

sefi

01-28-2006, 11:31 AM

I like this theory. It makes a lot of sense. But I don't know whether the writers actually thought of it (because it's quite clever) or it was just coincidental.

watcher4

01-28-2006, 11:33 AM

Just sad that someone had to die at all.:\ Oh well, that is one of the cruelties of life.

xrayvision

01-28-2006, 11:40 AM

Obviously we knew that Lois was going to live. But this whole prophecy seems flawed. Lana's life was saved by the altering of the timelines, but Jonathan's was doomed either way. I just don't buy it how his life would have been spared had Lana died. Death is not a person who chooses lives to take (even though it's been symbolized like this).

Another thing I just remembered is another timeline was shown besides these 2 in Lexmas where Lex had the same choice to make between his futures. In that timeline, Jonathan was already the senator and seemed to be making a decent amount of money and in good health. Lana was doomed, but why wouldn't Lionel be blackmailing Jonathan in that timeline and putting more stress on his heart (i.e. causing his death)?

SLE

01-28-2006, 11:42 AM

It does make a lot of sence thats what i was thinking when Lois was nocked out and almost got electrquted. I am sad that Johnathan had to die. I totally cryed when he died. i feel really bad and it's sad because I really liked Johnathan. I am happy that is wasn't Lana but I didn't really wanted him to die well I really didn't want anyone to die. it's life people die it was his time to go witch sucks. But we all new that Johnathan loved his son and he was proud of him and I am happy for that. I feel so bad for Martha because know all she has is Clark. Well thats how it goes. but what you said does make a lot of sence to me.:D

DanTMan

01-28-2006, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by scoobycookies
You're assuming that death chose Lana first in timeline 1 when actually death chose Lois first in BOTH timelines. It's just that Lois is saved no matter which timeline it is because Fate will not allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

You have to think about what the purpose of Lois falling was. Prior to reaching for the cookies in timeline 1, Lois had turned on the water in the sink. And Lois was already falling, when Lana stepped in to catch her and push her back up on the stool. If the fall in timeline 1 had completed, Lois would have died by electrocution as suggested in timeline 2, just as car accident and heartattack remain the causes of potential death for lana and jonathon in both timelines.

In the first timeline, Lana saves Lois from electrocution by stepping in to catch her fall. In the second timeline, Clark saves her from electrocution by lifting her off the water.

The purpose of showing Lois as the first target in both timelines is to show that the universe very much knows that Lois is Clark's greatest love. The purpose of showing that Lois is saved no matter which timeline their in, is to show that Fate will NOT allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

Lois, Lana and Jonathon were all in danger and someone did die in both timelines. Lana and Jonathon were meant to die in their respective timelines where as Lois was not meant to die in either timeline.

Best reply yet! reading that makes me like the episode better.

cakreel

01-28-2006, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by scoobycookies
The purpose of showing Lois as the first target in both timelines is to show that the universe very much knows that Lois is Clark's greatest love. The purpose of showing that Lois is saved no matter which timeline their in, is to show that Fate will NOT allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

This had not occurred to me at all. Excellent!

The more I review this episode, the tighter it looks and the more respect I have for it. When taken apart, it stands up to inspection quite well.

beefywellingtom

01-28-2006, 01:10 PM

TIMESTAR--- YOU"RE MY HERO FOR MENTIONING BTTF 2!!!

Originally posted by scoobycookies

In the first timeline, Lana saves Lois from electrocution by stepping in to catch her fall. In the second timeline, Clark saves her from electrocution by lifting her off the water.

The purpose of showing Lois as the first target in both timelines is to show that the universe very much knows that Lois is Clark's greatest love. The purpose of showing that Lois is saved no matter which timeline their in, is to show that Fate will NOT allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

Lois, Lana and Jonathon were all in danger and someone did die in both timelines. Lana and Jonathon were meant to die in their respective timelines where as Lois was not meant to die in either timeline. [/B]

EXCELLENT. I actually hadn't even remembered the part where Lana helped Lois on the stool. So both times Lois was gonna go first. Interesting.. I still wish it would've been Pete who reached his unfortunate end...

PETER WEST

01-28-2006, 01:27 PM

smvfan

01-28-2006, 01:46 PM

Thanks spideyfan for this thread and scoobycookies for an equally good explanation.. adds a lot more to this episode than what I noticed.

spideyfan

01-28-2006, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by scoobycookies
You're assuming that death chose Lana first in timeline 1 when actually death chose Lois first in BOTH timelines. It's just that Lois is saved no matter which timeline it is because Fate will not allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

You have to think about what the purpose of Lois falling was. Prior to reaching for the cookies in timeline 1, Lois had turned on the water in the sink. And Lois was already falling, when Lana stepped in to catch her and push her back up on the stool. If the fall in timeline 1 had completed, Lois would have died by electrocution as suggested in timeline 2, just as car accident and heartattack remain the causes of potential death for lana and jonathon in both timelines.

In the first timeline, Lana saves Lois from electrocution by stepping in to catch her fall. In the second timeline, Clark saves her from electrocution by lifting her off the water.

The purpose of showing Lois as the first target in both timelines is to show that the universe very much knows that Lois is Clark's greatest love. The purpose of showing that Lois is saved no matter which timeline their in, is to show that Fate will NOT allow Lois to die before the LoisClarkSuperman destiny is reached.

Lois, Lana and Jonathon were all in danger and someone did die in both timelines. Lana and Jonathon were meant to die in their respective timelines where as Lois was not meant to die in either timeline.

Great addition to this thread cookies...Very detailed explnation. Thank you.

Originally posted by sefi
I like this theory. It makes a lot of sense. But I don't know whether the writers actually thought of it (because it's quite clever) or it was just coincidental.

Lets give the writes a little credit. Thety mmany have thought of it.

Originally posted by smvfan
Thanks spideyfan for this thread and scoobycookies for an equally good explanation.. adds a lot more to this episode than what I noticed.

Your welcome but I dint really do anything. These forums as a supplement to SV always makes for an interesting week.

xrayvision

01-28-2006, 07:33 PM

But if you also consider the timeline in Lexmas, Lana was the one who died/nearly died in all 3 timelines. The same happened in Crisis. That girl is a death magnet.

The natural state of the universe is to have Lana die, and Clark keeps upsetting this by saving her and wanting to be with her. The dude should have realized this by now. He should have let the tornados get her.

Maybe she's got powers and is doing this on purpose, heh. That evil little wench.

knight3131

01-28-2006, 08:44 PM

This is what I think.

Every time he tried to save someone he would have also needed to go back and save all the others.

so if he was able to go back in time again and save his father. He would first save Louis, then Lana, and then his father, but then someone else maybe his mother would have died trying to get to the hospital after hurting Jonathan got hurt.

The lesson was also that he can't save all the people that he love and that he has to make these types of decisions.

jwoodie

01-28-2006, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by knight3131
This is what I think.

Every time he tried to save someone he would have also needed to go back and save all the others.

so if he was able to go back in time again and save his father. He would first save Louis, then Lana, and then his father, but then someone else maybe his mother would have died trying to get to the hospital after hurting Jonathan got hurt.

The lesson was also that he can't save all the people that he love and that he has to make these types of decisions.

I think this is exactly the right interpretation. The death was inevitable, we know that. Clark had some influenece over who the final victim ended up being, obviously, but the axe was going to fall on someone eventually. Clark has never dealt well with the idea that he can't control everything. When things got out of control this time, he boldly took the reset opportunity, while foolishly thinking that he was in control of things by doing so.

TheDanimal

01-28-2006, 10:18 PM

It just shows what a little time to allow everything to sink in and reflect on some of the small details can take what others have regarded as idiotic writing and turns it into something actually rather brilliant.

Eh,Man?You-El?

01-29-2006, 12:49 AM

I see the sequence of "death skipping" from Clark to Lana to Lois back to Lana to Jon Kent was designed specifically to show that Jor-El was NOT responsible for either Lana's or Jon Kent's death.

Jor-El's said "Nature demands a balance" when Clark was revived and when Clark wanted to change Lana's destiny by changing time. Most people in these forums have interpreted this as Jor-El "taking the life force from someone else to revive Clark".
The statement can also be interpreted as a simple warning based on the experience of Kryptonians experimenting with reviving people and changing time - that attempting to make changes in destiny will cause serious repercussions - a life for a life.

Since the death "skipped" from one person to another, it makes it less likely that Jor-El was applying any control on the process.
This was what the writers wanted to leave us with.
It's a valuable lesson for the young Superman
and it tends to rehabilitate Jor-El's reputation and probable intentions.

It also tends to rehabilitate Clark's own decision to try to save Lana. Jor-El decided to revive Clark even though he KNEW that someone else would die because of it. Clark make exactly the same decision after he had SEEN that another person would die after changing destiny so dramatically.

The screwy part for me is that Jor-El has not yet expressed any regret that his decision to revive Clark would cause someone close to him to die. Part of that, of course, was TPTB wanting to leave unclear and mixed messages to build up suspense. Clark, on the other hand will erupt in a paroxism of grief and guilt during "Vengeance" next week. (we may never hear about it again after that).

I'm convinced that there will be more repercussions to the time-travel and I'm betting the episode "Void" will partly revolve around questions of time-travel.

"Hidden"
Clark: Am I dead?

Jor-El: Your mortal journey is over, yes, but your eminent destiny is too important to sacrifice. You will return with all your natural gifts. Unfortunately, this rectification does not come without a price. The life of someone close to you will be exchanged for your's.

Clark: No. No, I would never ask for that.

Jor-El: You already did. When you decided to relinquish your powers and disobey me. It was your choice.

Clark: Then just don't bring me back!

Jor-El: It's too late. For everything in nature, there is a balance. The life force that has been returned to you will soon be taken from..from someone you love. You're about to face your darkest hour, my son. But, remember: The lessons that we learn from pain are the ones that make us the strongest.

jwoodie

01-29-2006, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Eh,Man?You-El?
... designed specifically to show that Jor-El was NOT responsible for either Lana's or Jon Kent's death.

Definitely true, the death was inevitable but who it was finally visited upon was completely out of Jor-El's hands.

Since the death "skipped" from one person to another, it makes it less likely that Jor-El was applying any control on the process.
This was what the writers wanted to leave us with.
It's a valuable lesson for the young Superman
and it tends to rehabilitate Jor-El's reputation and probable intentions.
...
The screwy part for me is that Jor-El has not yet expressed any regret that his decision to revive Clark would cause someone close to him to die...

First of all, I would be shocked to see Jor-El express anything like regret with regard to this "rectification". I mean, the characterization of Jor-El in Smallville has been a curious mix of monster and tyrannical puppetmaster, so I just can't see that. I do agree that all of this was designed to show that Jor-El is not necessarily those things. Clark has blamed Jor-El for the tragic things that have happened before, so in Clark's mind Jor-El is a monster. We'll see if Clark learns this lesson or blames Jor-El even more, but at some point he's got to learn that lesson, which will lead him to see the wisdom in Jor-El's words and deeds. This has been utterly lacking in their relationship since the beginning.

The "screwy" thing to me, to use your phrase, is the original event that set all of this in motion. I agree that the whole "Reckoning" episode very clearly wanted to show the hand of fate acting out in its own natural way, with its own set of rules ungoverned by any one person, even Jor-El. "The Universe will find a balance" and all that. That seems clear. But if all that is out of Jor-El's hands, then how could Jor-El have stuck his nose right into the middle of Clark's fate in "Hidden"? I guess you just have to take it as an article of faith that the guy is very powerful and has some sway over fate, but those two ideas seem to be in conflict.

Then again, not so fast. Hmmm. I think it does make sense. Perfect sense, actually (and thus the title of this thread). It's as if Jor-El pulled a "magic crystal" on Clark way back in "Hidden". Do-over, as they say. Clark disobeyed him and lost his powers. Jor-El knew he could punish Clark in this way because he knew that if anything were to happen to Clark (and Jor-El seems to have some fore-knowledge of what is to come anyway) he has the power to "reset" things, just as Clark did with Lana's death. But Jor-El knows, or knew back then, that such an action will have consequences beyond even Jor-El's power to control, much less Clark's. But Jor-El made it clear that he was forced to "rectify" Clark's mortal death because his destiny was too great to be sacrificed. So, knowing that there will be consequences down the road for Clark, Jor-El nonetheless makes the decision - regardless of how things will turn out for someone Clark loves (and Jor-El wouldn't have known who would die, only that this event would inevitably lead to someone dying, based on the events established above) to bring Clark back to life. Jor-El may not be the monster that Clark imagines him to be, but he is at least practical enough to recognize that saving Clark's life at the expense of one human life in return is a fair trade for the future of Earth.

If you look at it that way, the time-travel thing makes a lot more sense in context. In fact, it was always curious to me about the timing in "Hidden". I mean, Clark gets shot and clearly a little while passes (getting found on the road, sent to the hospital, life-saving measures, stable for a time, Lana's chat, then his death, then his chat with Jor-El). But after all that time, he comes back to life and still has time to stop the missile. The only scenes we saw with the missile after Clark getting shot were a few minutes (of course there can be missing minutes in the bunker) in the bunker with Chloe and the dude with the gun. So, looking at it this way, we have another time reversal. You can throw those time inconsistencies out the window, because when Jor-El pulled the "magic crystal" on Clark, he revived him and sent him *back in time* to Smallville with enough time to stop the missile.

Jor-El's admonition about using the crystal went something like, "there is one lesson you have yet to learn" almost like this was something that Kryptonians are well aware of, but are also well aware of the consequences. Jor-El should know, since he pulled a "magic crystal" of his own to save Clark's life, while understanding full well what the consequences of that action would be.

It seemed unclear in "Hidden" when he was telling Clark that the life force of someone close to him would be exchanged for his, whether he was being cryptic about who it would be or if in fact he didn't know. I thought he was just being cryptic when I saw it the first time (ok, you got me - I meant to say when I saw it the first dozen times) but after seeing "Reckoning" (and working all this out here) I'm convinced that he just didn't know who would be taken. The ambiguity makes him look like a monster and it makes the rectification look like a punishment from Clark's point of view, but looking at it again makes this seem for more likely to be simply a natural consequence of Clark's death and Jor-El's decision to bring him back. It's not a punishment, it's just the way it is. And Jor-El doesn't choose who dies, it just becomes inevitable that someone will die, at some point in the future.

The Universe will find a balance? Yup, and that kind of payback is a *****.

Last thing, if any of this is true, it sure makes the entire "rectification" story arc including the resolution in "Reckoning" look far more satisfactory. I mean, there has been a heck of a lot of complaining about how this went down, but I think if you look at it this way, the whole arc takes on a kind of classic Tragedy motif that is pretty special. If any of this is true, then it's also impossible to say that the writers simply pulled this one from thin air or that it was a cop-out. On reflection, it seems a lot more elegant and well planned than we might have given them credit for.

Thoughts?

Amylopan

01-29-2006, 03:06 AM

I don't disagree with a thing you said, actually. I always felt that Jor-El was merely thinking in the earth's best interest when he brought back Clark, despite the fact that a balance must be kept. The ends justify the means, etc.

However, I hadn't put that bit of info together with my dislike of the time travel mumbo jumbo. Perhaps this was the best way for the writers to show Clark learning a valuable lesson(s). Here I was thinking I had just been the victim of a ratings gimmick, but this does make more sense...and brings me to peace with the episode as well (although JK will be sorely missed).

Here is what Clark will utlimately take from these events, although not immediately:

1. He is a higher power. His presence in the universe is invaluable to people's safety, justifying Jor-El's decision to bring him back to life. (although Clark would have never wanted a sacrifice made on his behalf, he will recognize the need for his presence.)

2. Although he is an alien, he will accept it. His adopted people will mean more to him than his own well being and happiness.

3. Like Jor-El said, they have powers, but are not gods. Clark will definitely learn from these events that he can never abuse his powers.

4. He will crusade to save said people; it will be his purpose and duty.

5.Jor-El has the knowledge that Clark needs to pursue this purpose, so he must turn to him as some sort of father/teacher.

6. The adoption of an alter-ego will be essential, for the safety of the people he loves (although he is different from most superheroes, in that his alter-ego is his "true self". Bruce Wayne may dress up and conduct himself as Batman, but Clark truly IS Kal-El from Krypton! Clark Kent, mild mannered reporter is the lie...well, sorta. Kinda weird, huh?)

Ok, I'm just rambling at this point.

Good posts, everyone.

xrayvision

01-29-2006, 09:21 PM

The main reason this doesn't make sense to me is that if there must be a "balance" where a life must be taken for every one spared, then why doesn't someone die for every person Clark saves? I understand this to be an inconsistency that they used in their favor for this episode.

I understand that if someone has a health problem like JK did, that they would sooner than later they would die. I don't understand how Jonathan would have lived if Lana died in this episode (though in the timeline presented in Lexmas both lived for years until Lana finally died).

What did make sense was how in Hereafter, when Clark changed the future of the coach (who was going to kill himself), he would go on to use his rage to try to kill Lana and her friend. This was not health related, so I can completely understand how saving one person lead to the near death of other people. This last episode wasn't like that though.

Perhaps Jor-El was lying and knew that Jonathan would die because of the deal and that he knew Jonathan wouldn't last long after having those powers that no mortal was meant to have. So maybe he lied to Clark so that he wouldn't have to tell him the direct truth that his adoptive father was going to die. I think what was about to happen to Lana was a result of circumstance (as unreal as it seems since Smallville seems to have too much danger for a town its size).

Sydafex7

01-29-2006, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by reen16
His theory does'nt fail.
that just means death chose lana first, but clark went back in time and saved her, then death chose Lois but clark saves her, lastly death chooses Jonathan (theres really nothing Clark could have done. You can't stop someone frome having a bad heart)

spideyfan got it a little out of order but still, he was on the right track.

Pa kent wouldnt have died anyway. The reason he had his heart attack was because of the fight with Lionel and the fact that he found out that LIONEL (of all people) knows about the family

in the first timeline he never had a heart attack because he never had the meeting with Lionel because he stopped on the way to the meeting to tend to Lana's wreck. The second tme he HAS the meeting b/c Clark stopped the wreck and he didnt stop to tend to it. (which was the whole point of showing us that slow mo moment that Lana and jonathan had)

I dont think Lois was ever meant to be one of the chosen ones. Her whole thing was just a cool touch to show us how much of destiny Clark changed with his new decision not to tell Lana. Just like the daily planet scene with the flower delivery, the fireing, and the phone call.

It has always been discussed on the show that Clark will have to make decisions like this one every day when saving people. he has the power to change destiny, but just like the fna destination films, saving one death will ultimately lead to another, for balance. Its a cool premise and where most shows fail who try it and cause horrible plot holes, "reckoning" actually wrapped it up perfectly.

The thing I dont get is now that Jor-el has taken someone close, why cant Clark tell Lana his secret now and save the relationship? All Clark has to do is tell her to be freaking careful, which I think she was with Lex, I think that Lex just realized (like he said) that she said yes because she finally knew.

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.

protege

01-29-2006, 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
Pa kent wouldnt have died anyway. The reason he had his heart attack was because of the fight with Lionel and the fact that he found out that LIONEL (of all people) knows about the family

in the first timeline he never had a heart attack because he never had the meeting with Lionel because he stopped on the way to the meeting to tend to Lana's wreck. The second tme he HAS the meeting b/c Clark stopped the wreck and he didnt stop to tend to it. (which was the whole point of showing us that slow mo moment that Lana and jonathan had)

I dont think Lois was ever meant to be one of the chosen ones. Her whole thing was just a cool touch to show us how much of destiny Clark changed with his new decision not to tell Lana. Just like the daily planet scene with the flower delivery, the fireing, and the phone call.

It has always been discussed on the show that Clark will have to make decisions like this one every day when saving people. he has the power to change destiny, but just like the fna destination films, saving one death will ultimately lead to another, for balance. Its a cool premise and where most shows fail who try it and cause horrible plot holes, "reckoning" actually wrapped it up perfectly.

The thing I dont get is now that Jor-el has taken someone close, why cant Clark tell Lana his secret now and save the relationship? All Clark has to do is tell her to be freaking careful, which I think she was with Lex, I think that Lex just realized (like he said) that she said yes because she finally knew.

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.
But she didn't, the first time. And Clark felt he was directly responsible for it. Interesting contrast between Lex and Clark.

jwoodie

01-29-2006, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by xrayvision
The main reason this doesn't make sense to me is that if there must be a "balance" where a life must be taken for every one spared, then why doesn't someone die for every person Clark saves? I understand this to be an inconsistency that they used in their favor for this episode.

If the "this" in your post refers to my theory, then you misunderstand a bit. I was saying that what Jor-El did when bringing back Clark was to pull a "magic crystal" on Clark, just the same as Clark did with Lana. But at that point, Jor-El could not predict how it would effect the future - he didn't know who would die, or when, only that someone would because the universe would naturally find a balance. But this is directly related to the "magic crystal" - the act of doing this creates this imbalance that must be rectified. This is an unnatural act and something that is both inherently powerful and risky. When Clark saves someone, there is no imbalance created - this is not an unnatural act on par with the whole time-reversal thing. He may very well change destiny (witness Hereafter, as you said) but that is a natural consequence. There is no inherent imbalance created by Clark's actions alone.

JWangSDC2

01-30-2006, 04:04 AM

good theory, probably partially true. TPTB love to steal ideas, why not one from final destination?

SamBanksJLA

01-30-2006, 04:32 AM

I still don't think that Jor-El had anything to do with anyone dying in the 100th Episode. And I don't think that Clark chose Lana over JK. It's not like he knew his dad was going to die if he brought Lana back. If he was told that, then his decision to bring back Lana may have been different.

cayayofm

01-30-2006, 06:59 AM

It doesn't make sense (In the real world, that is). Why? Because on the 1st timeline Lana goes to help Lios with the decorating, and "saves" her. The 2nd time Lana doesn't help her with the decorating (and obviously doesn't save her) but then at the election party everything is decorated. This is stupidly wrong. If Lios had not decorated, SOMEONE would have had to been looking for Lois, which would have change the outcome of her almost dying. Which in my opinion she was never meant to die; it was just a badly witten attemp at drama. On the 2nd timeline all Lana's actions were the same, leading up to the accident, yet she never goes to the talon the decorate during the day.

Jonathan death doesn't makes sense either. Jonathan died a NATURAL death. That means that Jonathan would have died sooner or later in ANY timeline; it was his time to go. So by saying that CK saved Lana JK died is wrong. The only thing that could have been manipulated was Lana's death.

smallvillefan26

01-30-2006, 10:14 AM

A thought-provoking and well-written thread! I love it! :)

Originally posted by xrayvision
The main reason this doesn't make sense to me is that if there must be a "balance" where a life must be taken for every one spared, then why doesn't someone die for every person Clark saves? I understand this to be an inconsistency that they used in their favor for this episode. Maybe this is a bit of a reach, but going on the whole "fate" thing, maybe it was those peoples' "fates" to be saved by Clark. Remember Cassandra? "That's your destiny, Clark, saving people." However, maybe JK was not meant to be saved.

scoobycookies, you have an excellent point about Lois and her being part of the destiny. I never thought about that in the context of the first and second timelines, the fact that Lois is a bigger part of the legend than is Lana, so she must live. In other words, "fate" chose her to live.

knight3131 and jwoodie, I agree that this was a good lesson for Clark, to learn that he cannot control everything or save everyone. This is one that he will grapple with for the rest of his life. Furthermore, I understand Jor-El's lack of remorse. I think he knew what would happen (maybe not who it would happen to) and he actually wanted his son to go through this to grow as a Kryptonian. I appreciate the portrayal of Jor-El much more now than in past seasons. I don't see him anymore as a monster, but as a father who has forced his son through certain trials because he knows that will lead him to his destiny. I hope that this portrayal continues because I believe that Jor-El is the only father figure that Clark can possibly have and he will need to learn from and look up to him to secure his future as Superman. I'm looking forward to this dynamic between Clark and Jor-El. Clark will struggle, will wonder how he can look up to and learn from this man who seemingly (whether legitimate reasoning or not) took his father from him.

Once again, great discussion!

Sydafex7

01-30-2006, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by cayayofm
It doesn't make sense (In the real world, that is). Why? Because on the 1st timeline Lana goes to help Lios with the decorating, and "saves" her. The 2nd time Lana doesn't help her with the decorating (and obviously doesn't save her) but then at the election party everything is decorated. This is stupidly wrong. If Lios had not decorated, SOMEONE would have had to been looking for Lois, which would have change the outcome of her almost dying. Which in my opinion she was never meant to die; it was just a badly witten attemp at drama. On the 2nd timeline all Lana's actions were the same, leading up to the accident, yet she never goes to the talon the decorate during the day.

Jonathan death doesn't makes sense either. Jonathan died a NATURAL death. That means that Jonathan would have died sooner or later in ANY timeline; it was his time to go. So by saying that CK saved Lana JK died is wrong. The only thing that could have been manipulated was Lana's death.

But JK's death wasnt natural. His heart attack was triggered because of the shock that Lionel, the last person th family EVER wants to have damaging info DOES have info (I assume about Clark's origins). He didnt have the heart attack in the first timeline because he never made the meeting with Lionel becayse he was side tracked by Lana's wreck. The scond timeline he did have the heart attack because he made the meeting with Lionel because Clark stopped Lana's accident from happening.

Im sure he wouldve always died of a heart attack, but not THAT DAY. By saving Lana, Clark triggered the events to cause the heart attack THAT DAY.

smallvillefan26

01-31-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
But JK's death wasnt natural. His heart attack was triggered because of the shock that Lionel, the last person th family EVER wants to have damaging info DOES have info (I assume about Clark's origins). He didnt have the heart attack in the first timeline because he never made the meeting with Lionel becayse he was side tracked by Lana's wreck. The scond timeline he did have the heart attack because he made the meeting with Lionel because Clark stopped Lana's accident from happening.

Im sure he wouldve always died of a heart attack, but not THAT DAY. By saving Lana, Clark triggered the events to cause the heart attack THAT DAY. I agree with this point of view. At first I was going to say that the only thing that seems to conflict with this is the fact that in Lexmas, JK is Senator and he is healthy, but wouldn't he have still taken the money and still met with Lionel? However, after doing a little more thinking, I realized that Lex would have dropped out and JK wouldn't have needed the money to beat him. So everything holds up in this point of view about JK's death.

It is fascinating to me how well Lexmas is tying in with Reckoning. I don't know if it is coincidental or intentional, but I love it!

Originally posted by cayayofm
It doesn't make sense (In the real world, that is). Why? Because on the 1st timeline Lana goes to help Lios with the decorating, and "saves" her. The 2nd time Lana doesn't help her with the decorating (and obviously doesn't save her) but then at the election party everything is decorated. This is stupidly wrong. If Lios had not decorated, SOMEONE would have had to been looking for Lois, which would have change the outcome of her almost dying. Which in my opinion she was never meant to die; it was just a badly witten attemp at drama. On the 2nd timeline all Lana's actions were the same, leading up to the accident, yet she never goes to the talon the decorate during the day.I read this before I watched Reckoning a second time and I specifically watched this scene because I thought you made a good point. I believe that Lois says something along the lines of the decorating committee doing a bad job to Lana. I think there were people there decorating but Lois was glad to see Lana there. I agree though that it is a bit of a hole, but one I was willing to overlook in the context of the timelines and the whole "fate" thing.

MidgardDragon

01-31-2006, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by xrayvision
The main reason this doesn't make sense to me is that if there must be a "balance" where a life must be taken for every one spared, then why doesn't someone die for every person Clark saves? I understand this to be an inconsistency that they used in their favor for this episode.

The reason death doesn't skip to someone else when Clark saves someone from death *while they're still alive* is that it's not unnatural to save someone from death that's still alive, however it is unnatural to bring someone back from the dead. That's why nature had to find the balance, because Clark was "meant" to die there, b/c of the bad choices he had made that lead to his death. However, we don't know that any of the people Clark has saved where meant to die, maybe they were meant to be saved by Clark in the long run?

However, once the "cycle" started up and started trying to balance out the unnatural return from the dead by Clark, "death/fate" obviously had clear intentions of who was meant to die, and as they were saved (in one timeline or the other) skipped to the next most likely candidate. I do not think, as others have mentioned, that JK would have died anyways had he not had the encounter with Lionel. Sure, he would have had stressful times, but remember he was taking those little red pills, and would have been much more likely to remember to pop one during a business meeting or something similar rather than in an encounter with Lionel, where Lionel was threatening to destroy his family if he didn't cooperate.

Sydafex7

01-31-2006, 02:12 PM

I know everyone remembers Hereafter. What about the first Vision that Jordan had of Lana, dying in bed peacefully next to (I would assume) her future husband.

We all know that Her and Clark dont end up together because Clark ends up with Lois, and since Jordan didnt see her death scene as a car accident (obviously, since I doubt the writers from season 3 planned for "reckoning") it seems the car wreck wasnt her destiny. Clark knew about Jordan's vision in Hereafter which is why when he went to Jor-el he said that Lana's death was not a part of her destiny.

uhhh I dont remember what my main point was going to be :confused: :o.

I just rememberd that vision that Jordan had in Hereafter and was trying to make a connection but like I said, I highly doubt they planned reckoning to happen the way it did all the way back in season 3. I do know that TPTB have a series timeline and a Jonathan was alays going to die in the 5th season, but I dont think they knew how the were going to do it (or maybe they did I dunno)

smallvillefan26

01-31-2006, 05:29 PM

I thought about the episode Hereafter also while I was reading some of the posts in this thread. I never thought about it tying into Clark telling Jor-El that Lana's death was not a part of her destiny. Good catch. I was wondering why Jordan wouldn't have seen the car accident as her death (though I'm sure you're right, the writers weren't even thinking about it), but then I remembered that during Hereafter, Lana was kidnapped by the coach and Jordan said her death had changed. The only thing I can think is that Jordan's visions were only applicable at the moment that he has them. So, for example, if Jordan had touched Lana at the rally in the first timeline, maybe he would have seen that she was going to die in the accident. But then again, maybe he would have seen her alive and well because Clark would eventually save her.

Okay, I'm giving myself a headache, lol.

MidgardDragon

01-31-2006, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
I know everyone remembers Hereafter. What about the first Vision that Jordan had of Lana, dying in bed peacefully next to (I would assume) her future husband.

We all know that Her and Clark dont end up together because Clark ends up with Lois, and since Jordan didnt see her death scene as a car accident (obviously, since I doubt the writers from season 3 planned for "reckoning") it seems the car wreck wasnt her destiny. Clark knew about Jordan's vision in Hereafter which is why when he went to Jor-el he said that Lana's death was not a part of her destiny.

uhhh I dont remember what my main point was going to be :confused: :o.

I just rememberd that vision that Jordan had in Hereafter and was trying to make a connection but like I said, I highly doubt they planned reckoning to happen the way it did all the way back in season 3. I do know that TPTB have a series timeline and a Jonathan was alays going to die in the 5th season, but I dont think they knew how the were going to do it (or maybe they did I dunno)

Regarding Reckoning. The reason Jordan didn't see Lana dying in the car accident is that the choices that changed her destiny to that had not yet been made or even hinted at. That's the thing about seeing the future, nothing's set in stone, so what you see at one moment is just what would happen if everything went normally up until then. If he had touched her recently, he might have been able to see the car crash.

clois1938

01-31-2006, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
Regarding Reckoning. The reason Jordan didn't see Lana dying in the car accident is that the choices that changed her destiny to that had not yet been made or even hinted at. That's the thing about seeing the future, nothing's set in stone, so what you see at one moment is just what would happen if everything went normally up until then. If he had touched her recently, he might have been able to see the car crash.
I agree because if you look at Lexmas, Lana dies there too.

smallvillefan26

02-01-2006, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
Regarding Reckoning. The reason Jordan didn't see Lana dying in the car accident is that the choices that changed her destiny to that had not yet been made or even hinted at. That's the thing about seeing the future, nothing's set in stone, so what you see at one moment is just what would happen if everything went normally up until then. If he had touched her recently, he might have been able to see the car crash. This is much more coherent than what I was trying to say. :)

UpandAtom

03-02-2006, 10:36 AM

IstvanSK

03-03-2006, 02:00 AM

i think that the "reckoning"'s first timeline where CK tells lana the truth is a way of makeing peace whit the fans....showing them what would happen if lana knew the whole thing......and she wasn't ready to die..not yet....

by killing JK they somehow are preventing us to see the picture that he holds in his hands...that way ...i don't know but killing him at these point was necesery......(he won the elections)

THE WHOLE EPI. WAS SO "FINAL DESTENATION".......:D

UpandAtom

03-03-2006, 10:46 AM

Lana didn't really find out everything in the whole timeline. She didn't know that Clark came in the first meteor shower and that he was responsible for her parents death so we don't know how she'd react to that.

MidgardDragon

03-03-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by UpandAtom
Lana didn't really find out everything in the whole timeline. She didn't know that Clark came in the first meteor shower and that he was responsible for her parents death so we don't know how she'd react to that.

True, Clark never told her that part. But, we have to consider: in a previous episode, she was wondering "what if a ship came in the first meteor shower, and that person has been here with us the whole time?"

Then, Clark tells her he's from Krypton, and she just might have put two and two together. We were never told she figured that out, though, and considering how big of a deal they've made out of it in the past I would think they would have. It's still a possibility that she had figured that out, though, given what Lana had hinted at in previous episodes.

UpandAtom

03-03-2006, 04:28 PM

Well, Lana doesn't know from where the meteor shower came and Clark telling her the name of his home planet wouldn't give her a clue either. And she doesn't even know if Clark came in a ship at all.

jwoodie

03-03-2006, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by UpandAtom
Well, Lana doesn't know from where the meteor shower came and Clark telling her the name of his home planet wouldn't give her a clue either. And she doesn't even know if Clark came in a ship at all.

I wouldn't get too caught up in the "what did she know? what didn't she know?" game. That whole scene was SO abridged for time that it clearly was a 2 minute conversation meant to replace a MUCH longer conversation that we can only assume happened off camera. Ultimately it didn't matter but they had to cut it up so much just to fit it into the first Act that I think speculating about what she *might* have known after that, had she lived, is pointless. If they didn't intend to make it all irrelevant with a time-warp then they would have shown us the whole conversation that took place and you could speculate on that, but that didn't happen. That whole conversation was almost like you might see in a trailer - artfully created/edited but ultimately abridged to just show the highlights.

UpandAtom

03-03-2006, 05:29 PM

I agree. The whole scenario happened way too fast. Clark tells Lana his secret and the next second he asks her to marry him. Lana should've had more time to get used to the secret before being dumped by something else.

watcher4

03-23-2006, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by UpandAtom
I agree. The whole scenario happened way too fast. Clark tells Lana his secret and the next second he asks her to marry him. Lana should've had more time to get used to the secret before being dumped by something else.

I agree. Lana knowing the secret always seemed to me to be a backdrop to the series. To have Clark revealing his secret to Lana in such a rused manner came across as though TPTB did not know what they were doing.

[]D.[].[V].[]D

04-17-2006, 07:57 PM

if hes right then wouldn't that make clana instead of clois and i always thought lana stayed in smallville and lois stayed in metropolis would that have changed anything or would lang have moved to metropolis?

Sydafex7

04-17-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally posted by []D.[].[V].[]D
if hes right then wouldn't that make clana instead of clois and i always thought lana stayed in smallville and lois stayed in metropolis would that have changed anything or would lang have moved to metropolis?

Well Lana in the cartoon was a fashion designer in Metropolis and was dating Lex Luthor. It just depends on which story you use. I still dont like Lois in Smallville. I think that it is waaay to convienent and I think it messes up them meeting later at the Planet. I mean when they meed at the Planet, Clark has to act bumbling and Clumsy and since he just met lois, she has no idea that he isnt really clumsy or a dork. If Smallville would continue, than Lois and him meet back up at the Planet, she knows who he is and is even friends with him. She knows hes not clumsy I mean come on, Clark was a H.S football star, a jock and he's definitely not clumsy or even a dork, he was the complete opposite his Senior year, so I find it hard to believe that when they meet back up at the Planet and Clark is all of a sudden acting like a dork and tripping on the things that Lois will fall for that. I mean being clumsy isnt something that you get like over time.

MidgardDragon

04-17-2006, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
Well Lana in the cartoon was a fashion designer in Metropolis and was dating Lex Luthor. It just depends on which story you use. I still dont like Lois in Smallville. I think that it is waaay to convienent and I think it messes up them meeting later at the Planet. I mean when they meed at the Planet, Clark has to act bumbling and Clumsy and since he just met lois, she has no idea that he isnt really clumsy or a dork. If Smallville would continue, than Lois and him meet back up at the Planet, she knows who he is and is even friends with him. She knows hes not clumsy I mean come on, Clark was a H.S football star, a jock and he's definitely not clumsy or even a dork, he was the complete opposite his Senior year, so I find it hard to believe that when they meet back up at the Planet and Clark is all of a sudden acting like a dork and tripping on the things that Lois will fall for that. I mean being clumsy isnt something that you get like over time.

Clark doesn't have to act bumbling and clumsy. Ever see Lois and Clark? Dean Cain's Clark wasn't bumbling or clumsy and he is still considered one of the best CK's ever.

Sydafex7

04-18-2006, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
Clark doesn't have to act bumbling and clumsy. Ever see Lois and Clark? Dean Cain's Clark wasn't bumbling or clumsy and he is still considered one of the best CK's ever.

He's considered one of the best Ck's ever? It's a known fact that most Superman writers, wether comics, movies, T.v or whatever, consider Dean Cain's Clark/Superman to be the WORST portrayal of that character in the history of the character. Need proof of that then check out the issue of Wizard Magazine with Brandon Routh on the cover. They touch base on all the different actors to play the part of Clark/Superman and there's a quote from Millar (not Miles Millar of Smallville, but a famous comic writer who's worked on some of the most famous Superman comics) stating that Dean Caine's portrayal of Clark/Superman is the worst ever.

Besides that, we're talking about Smallville and THAT portrayal of the character. It doesnt make sense for Lois to be on Smallville. Especially with the hints the writers drop that Clark WILL act bumbling and clumsy in the future to hide his true identity.

Quote from Lois after Clark asks her if she'd be interested in Journalism in the future (from Commencement) "Knowing my luck I'll probably end up opposite the most bumbling reporter..."

Another quote from Lois (from crusade): "I don't know, give me a nerd with glasses any day.."

These 2 quotes prove that if Smallville would continue after he and Lois are already at the Planet that they'd write for him to act bumbling and clumsy to hide his true identity. They forshadow ALL THE TIME that he will act as if he's clumsy and dress like a dork to hide his true identity.

In "reckoning" they even tried to say that he's clumsy and bumbling now, even though he hasnt been that way since season 1 pilot when he got near Lana ans tripped b/c of her kryptonite necklace. In "Reckoning when Lana is with Lois in the Talon apartment and she stares off into space Lois says (not exact but close) "let me take three guesses; Tall, Dark and Bumbling..."
I wouldnt have a problem AT ALL with them foreshadowing that Clark will act and dress like a dorky clutz when he's at the Planet if Lois wasn't his friend NOW in Smallville. It would actually be pretty good irony if he was that way because he's such a jocky stud now. But the simple fact that Lois KNOWS he's not a clutz doesnt make sense for him to act that way in the future becauses she's gonna be like "What the hell? Why is he acting like that and dressing like that?"

MidgardDragon

04-18-2006, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by Sydafex7
He's considered one of the best Ck's ever? It's a known fact that most Superman writers, wether comics, movies, T.v or whatever, consider Dean Cain's Clark/Superman to be the WORST portrayal of that character in the history of the character.

Besides that, we're talking about Smallville and THAT portrayal of the character. It doesnt make sense for Lois to be on Smallville. Especially with the hints the writers drop that Clark WILL act bumbling and clumsy in the future to hide his true identity.

Quote from Lois after Clark asks her if she'd be interested in Journalism in the future (from Commencement) "Knowing my luck I'll probably end up opposite the most bumbling reporter..."

Another quote from Lois (from crusade): "I don't know, give me a nerd with glasses any day.."

These 2 quotes prove that if Smallville would continue after he and Lois are already at the Planet that they'd write for him to act bumbling and clumsy to hide his true identity. They forshadow ALL THE TIME that he will act as if he's clumsy and dress like a dork to hide his true identity.

In "reckoning" they even tried to say that he's clumsy and bumbling now, even though he hasnt been that way since season 1 pilot when he got near Lana ans tripped b/c of her kryptonite necklace. In "Reckoning when Lana is with Lois in the Talon apartment and she stares off into space Lois says (not exact but close) "let me take three guesses; Tall, Dark and Bumbling..."
I wouldnt have a problem AT ALL with them foreshadowing that Clark will act and dress like a dorky clutz when he's at the Planet if Lois wasn't his friend NOW in Smallville. It would actually be pretty good irony if he was that way because he's such a jocky stud now. But the simple fact that Lois KNOWS he's not a clutz doesnt make sense for him to act that way in the future becauses she's gonna be like "What the hell? Why is he acting like that and dressing like that?"

All I know is when asked who their favorite Clark Kent was, most of the people I've talked to (both online and in real life) read about, or watched on TV, have considered Dean Cain as the best CK. His *Superman* now, that's another story entirely. His Clark was believable, a normal guy, not exagerratedly bumbly or overly spectacular, just average. Being average, that's the true way to keep from drawing attention to yourself, not acting like a complete bumbling nerd. And I think, wether you or Superman writers (not exactly the most objective bunch, since they have ideas about exactly they want "their" Superman to be) believe so doesn't really matter to me.

Lastly, the little Superman shout-outs are just that, shout-outs. They don't have to be foreshadowing of the future, they're simply a way to give the fans a little something to go "hey, that happened in the comics/movie/tv show". Clark Kent in Smallville does *not* equal Clark Kent of any other incarnation. No one ever said future Clark Kent had to be a bumbly reporter to hide his true identity. Average Joe Reporter would suit a "don't look at me, I'm nothing special" disguise just fine. And let's be honest, Glasses and a nerdy demeanor aren't that great of a disguise in the first place.

Sydafex7

04-18-2006, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
All I know is when asked who their favorite Clark Kent was, most of the people I've talked to (both online and in real life) read about, or watched on TV, have considered Dean Cain as the best CK. His *Superman* now, that's another story entirely. His Clark was believable, a normal guy, not exagerratedly bumbly or overly spectacular, just average. Being average, that's the true way to keep from drawing attention to yourself, not acting like a complete bumbling nerd. And I think, wether you or Superman writers (not exactly the most objective bunch, since they have ideas about exactly they want "their" Superman to be) believe so doesn't really matter to me.

Lastly, the little Superman shout-outs are just that, shout-outs. They don't have to be foreshadowing of the future, they're simply a way to give the fans a little something to go "hey, that happened in the comics/movie/tv show". Clark Kent in Smallville does *not* equal Clark Kent of any other incarnation. No one ever said future Clark Kent had to be a bumbly reporter to hide his true identity. Average Joe Reporter would suit a "don't look at me, I'm nothing special" disguise just fine. And let's be honest, Glasses and a nerdy demeanor aren't that great of a disguise in the first place.

Exactly, glases aren't a good disguise, which is why he has to act like a dork too. Those aren't shoutouts, they are foreshadowing. A shoutout is along the lines of Lex's kryptonite ring in "Onyx". Lois saying "Give me a nerd in glasses anyday" is definitely not a shoutout. LOIS, her character JUST said she'd rather have a nerd in glasses than a jock farmer.We all KNOW that she ends up with Clark. Clark is NOT a nerd in glasses. He's a jocky farmer boy...

And did you not see my other quotes?? They prove my point even further. It's OBVIOUS that if Smallville would continue with Clark as Superman in Metropolis and all of that, they would write him to be a nerd and bumbly.

My point is, that MAKES NO SENSE. They call him bumbly now and he never trips or falls or anything. Just think about it. Lois on Smallville is retarted...

Anyways, I'm done.