Clark Kent: Killing's just dandy! [Archive] - KSiteTV Television & Movie Forums

alienkinfolk

10-18-2007, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by myankskent
There's really no way to tap dance out of this one. He knew that he was going after a mortal man, or so he thought, yet he throws the guy with that kind of force? I don't get it. Then he steals a bottle of syrup as well. Alright, maybe he left the money for that, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

too funny:D
yeah Clark went at the doc with full force, didn't even care he would of died from blunt force trauma and electrocution-if he had been mortal

curiosity

10-18-2007, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by Routh
Um, so was anyone else disturbed when Clark wasn't phased when he thought he killed Knox? These writers really don't think about the fact that SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL. Clark shouldn't have been okay when thinking he'd killed a man.

Umm....Clark arrived just in time to keep Knox from killing Lex. He kocked him out of the way, and accidently into power lines which he thought killed knox, a guy who was killing all of his patients.

Clark did not intentionally try to kill Knox, just like at the end when he says to MM, "You didn't kill him did you?".

warriorrenegade

10-18-2007, 07:37 PM

I look at it like this....If you see someone say your brother getting his ass kicked. What would you do? Walk over and tap the guy on the shoulder ask him to quit and help your brother to his feet? No you wouldn't . You'd bum rush the guy, smack the...ever living **** out of him and bounce up out of there. I maybe wrong , I maybe right...don't know. I do know my brother isn't getting his ass kicked anymore.

Alexander III

10-18-2007, 07:44 PM

I just can't believe Clark would say something like that to Lex...this is something Lex would normally say! Not Clark dude!

SteveS

10-18-2007, 07:47 PM

Since comics have absolutely no effect on me, ClarkMan or Superman killing baddies has no effect on my respect for him, besides ClarkMan knows that there is some form of afterlife.

MrZeppo

10-18-2007, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by curiosity
Umm....Clark arrived just in time to keep Knox from killing Lex. He kocked him out of the way, and accidently into power lines which he thought killed knox, a guy who was killing all of his patients.

Clark did not intentionally try to kill Knox, just like at the end when he says to MM, "You didn't kill him did you?".

That whole thing was badly scripted. Here's why. Clark said he was following Knox, so he should have been nearby watching Knox & Lex's whole exchange. Not looking like he zoomed in at the last minute to save Lex.

So, now Clark still didn't know Knox was "special". So then comes the super hit that knocked Knox into an electrical box. Why'd you have to hit him so hard Clark, damn? Then the plain look before speeding away with Lex. You just killed a man dammit, check for a pulse or something!

The conversation with Lex in the hospital room felt weak too... That whole scene was wierd because I was surprised Clark admitted to killing Knox to Lex of all people, and the matter of fact tone he took. Maybe he was in shock then, but it didn't really show. It felt more like an exposition moment to have Lex tell Clark what Knox is upto.

My explanation? Bad editing maybe? Fanboy writers who just think it's cool to have Tom Welling and Dean Cain tossing each other around the room? The cue cards Dean Cain couldn't keep his eyes off of during the GoForward ad at the end? I dunno.

alienkinfolk

10-18-2007, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Alexander III
I just can't believe Clark would say something like that to Lex...this is something Lex would normally say! Not Clark dude!

yeah it's disturbing that clark assumed he died. the implies he pre-meditated murder.
and blah blah blah i know he's not superman yet but he's still jk's son.

Ardiem3

10-18-2007, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Routh
Um, so was anyone else disturbed when Clark wasn't phased when he thought he killed Knox? These writers really don't think about the fact that SUPERMAN DOESN'T KILL. Clark shouldn't have been okay when thinking he'd killed a man.

I think that he was just surprised that he was still alive for the mere fact that he could kill more people. As Lionel said before, "The price of one is the price that must be paid to save others."

superspider02

10-18-2007, 08:11 PM

yea i didnt like that he didnt really seem to mind that he killed(thought he killed) knox.

Ardiem3

10-18-2007, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by superspider02
yea i didnt like that he didnt really seem to mind that he killed(thought he killed) knox.

What are you to expect, when someones life is in danger from someone, you can only feel bad to a certain extent. If he had really killed Zod, do you think he wouldve felt bad about it?

myankskent

10-18-2007, 08:37 PM

Still laughing at the title of this thread.

Mello Penelo

10-18-2007, 08:38 PM

TPTB assumed having Dean Cain as a guest star would make us forget all the plot points. They don't give us enough credit.

DarkChilde

10-18-2007, 08:44 PM

Clarks emotional attachment to certain "humans"(his friends) is greater than that of all humans. He just hasn't relized that all life is precious.

In "Combat", when he killed Titan that was just sexual frustration from Lana marrying Lex after saying she wasn't.

He does need to control his emotions though.

Zach

10-18-2007, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by thedean123
Maybe this superman should kill lol. He's killed and let so many people die at this point lets just roll with it, when this Clark is superman it sure could be a lot more interesting.

Yeah, and I think that people have to remember that the main reason that Superman "didn't kill" was because he was so powerful compared to his enemies in post-crisis eras. Originally, he was just fighting natural disasters and petty criminals. Eventually, he moved onto "big bads," but they typically didn't have any powers that could really match him.

However, now his enemies are almost, or even as powerful as he is. So therefore, he needs to abide by the idea of "do not wound what you can't kill" kind of mentality.

Part of the challenge that Superman faced before was putting away his enemies while protecting their lives. But I think that he has enough of a challenge just putting them away that he can't be concerned with protecting them simultaneously.

Just a thought, I could be wrong.

LexLuv180

10-18-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by myankskent
Still laughing at the title of this thread.

LOL Same here, I pictured him and Jonathan bundled up together in the checkered shirts, sitting on the porch.

Kii

10-18-2007, 10:02 PM

I was also bothered by Clark "killing" Knox.

paolinki25

10-18-2007, 10:35 PM

Yeah, that bothered me as well, especially after reading Gough's interview where he said one of DC's restrictions was to NEVER allow Clark to kill someone, but somehow "meteor freaks" or whatever are ok.

TampaVille

10-18-2007, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Zach
Yeah, and I think that people have to remember that the main reason that Superman "didn't kill" was because he was so powerful compared to his enemies in post-crisis eras. Originally, he was just fighting natural disasters and petty criminals. Eventually, he moved onto "big bads," but they typically didn't have any powers that could really match him.

However, now his enemies are almost, or even as powerful as he is. So therefore, he needs to abide by the idea of "do not wound what you can't kill" kind of mentality.

Part of the challenge that Superman faced before was putting away his enemies while protecting their lives. But I think that he has enough of a challenge just putting them away that he can't be concerned with protecting them simultaneously.

Just a thought, I could be wrong.

I agree with your logic completely, but it doesn't apply in this situation. When Clark zipped onto the scene, he had no reason to believe Knox was not just an average mortal (frankly, I even pulled a 'what the hell?' when I saw Knox get shot and then start pulling out bullets!).

Clark should have just given Knox a pat on the head to knock him out, like he did with Pete in Nicodemus as well as a couple other times I believe.

Originally posted by curiosity
Umm....Clark arrived just in time to keep Knox from killing Lex. He kocked him out of the way, and accidently into power lines which he thought killed knox, a guy who was killing all of his patients.

Clark did not intentionally try to kill Knox

I don't mean this offensively, but I think you're missing the point. Look at it like this:

Lets say you (as a normal human) see your friend (who happens to be made of aluminum foil) being attacked by a mugger (who is made out of spaghetti) using a nerf gun as a weapon. You COULD rush in there and tackle spaghetti man to the ground, but that would be complete overkill.

It was even more overkill for Clark. Clark is physically more durable than titanium and he was moving at superspeed... he wasn't a guy moving really fast, he was a missile. Had Knox been mortal, Clark would have killed him in any of several different ways. The blunt force trauma, the whiplash that would have broken his neck, the impact upon landing which would have smashed him, or the electrocuting. Probably others.

Superman is renowned for being so CAREFUL with his powers. I'm not saying there's necessarily a legal case against Clark. There's probably not. My point is that the writers need to seriously start considering how much they want to diverge from comics Clark.

migo

10-19-2007, 04:06 AM

Ummm... Bizarro sent Lex flying in Episode 1 with the same force, and it didn't kill him. Evidently in Smallville physics don't apply. Since he's never killed anyone else with that kind of force it's reasonable for him to expect it wouldn't happen this time. The thing he thought did it was the electrocution.

TampaVille

10-19-2007, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by migo
Ummm... Bizarro sent Lex flying in Episode 1 with the same force, and it didn't kill him. Evidently in Smallville physics don't apply. Since he's never killed anyone else with that kind of force it's reasonable for him to expect it wouldn't happen this time. The thing he thought did it was the electrocution.

I'm not going to pursue this issue any further. I'm not saying you're wrong. You arguments are perfectly valid. The problem is that so are mine, and neither of us is wrong. It's simply really difficult, perhaps impossible, to have any sort of meaningful discussion when we can say things like "we have to assume physics work differently in SV."

HalJordan4184

10-19-2007, 08:32 AM

I'd like to point out a few things. Clark didn't kill, comics wise, because he simply doesn't kill. In less than a year post crisis he had already fought Darkseid, Bizarro, and any of a number of other supervillains. He still didn't kill them.

The one time he did kill, with Zod and his crew in the pocket universe, he felt so bad afterward, and was so wracked with guilt, he had a psychotic breakdown, and had to exile himself, because he was afraid of what he would do.

Despite Al Gough's insistence Smallville Clark has never killed anyone, realistically he would have. You just can't administer lethal blows to people every week, smash into them at a thousand miles an hour, or electrcute them, melt them with heat vision, or anything else, and just be like, well, they lived. There is no logical reason that person is alive. No plausible deniability. Heck, I'm sure if Clark decapitated someone, they'd have a scene at the end where the guy walks in wearing a bandage around his neck, and says, thank god for LuthorCorp's experimental medical procedures, otherwise i'd be dead.

Clark is supposed to have an absolute moral stance against killing, and use of extreme force. That's one of the character's downfalls fight wise, is that he coddles his opponents, and doens't just take them out. I could easily see Smallville's Clark lining his enemies up, and just vaporizing everyone with full bore, no holds barred heat vision barrages.

Mischael12

10-19-2007, 08:43 AM

Well like i always say they are mixing a lot of the things from the comics together. Clark acted like Golden Age Superman, if you read any of the old comic books you'll notice that there were ways that he dealt with criminals that would possibly result in death though it wasn't shown. They've toned it down afterwards but even in certain cases Superman has done things to people that they shouldn't be able to survive normally.

TampaVille

10-19-2007, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Mischael12
Well like i always say they are mixing a lot of the things from the comics together. Clark acted like Golden Age Superman, if you read any of the old comic books you'll notice that there were ways that he dealt with criminals that would possibly result in death though it wasn't shown. They've toned it down afterwards but even in certain cases Superman has done things to people that they shouldn't be able to survive normally.

You're technically correct, but I think you're missing HalJordan's point (excellently said, by the way, Hal). The whole "Superman doesn't kill" thing doesn't mean that he uses his powers willy nilly but the baddies always end up surviving. It means that he goes way out of his way to use less than what would be lethal force to neutralize his enemies without killing them.

You are correct in pointing out examples where Superman DID use excessive force, and just happened not to kill the villain. Those instances fall into one of two categories though:

1) Bad writing (such as the Al/Miles variety of "Supes doesn't kill)
2) Antiquated writing

Golden Age Superman is not the basis of SV. Superman's personality and ethics have evolved a lot over the last 68 years! :)

euterpe

10-20-2007, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by TampaVille
I agree with your logic completely, but it doesn't apply in this situation. When Clark zipped onto the scene, he had no reason to believe Knox was not just an average mortal (frankly, I even pulled a 'what the hell?' when I saw Knox get shot and then start pulling out bullets!).

Clark should have just given Knox a pat on the head to knock him out, like he did with Pete in Nicodemus as well as a couple other times I believe.

It was even more overkill for Clark. Clark is physically more durable than titanium and he was moving at superspeed... he wasn't a guy moving really fast, he was a missile. Had Knox been mortal, Clark would have killed him in any of several different ways. The blunt force trauma, the whiplash that would have broken his neck, the impact upon landing which would have smashed him, or the electrocuting. Probably others.
Clark didn’t know Knox was killing his patients when he first “killed” him. Lex informed him of that later in the hospital. And even if Clark did not intend to kill Knox, did he just assume he was dead without even checking? Why didn’t he pick up both Lex AND Knox and rush them both to the hospital and sort things out later. It’s not like it would be too much of a burden; the man tosses tractors, for crying out loud.

That’s always a problem I have had with Clark from the beginning. There have been many times when he’s tossed people aside or they were somehow “done in” and he just let it happen or left them. As far as I am concerned, standing by and letting someone die when you know you could do something to prevent it is just as bad as killing by your own hand.

I agree with the notion that Clark is King of Overkill. He should be able to knock someone out without sending them flying across the room. Even a dog with (I’m generously assuming) a lesser intelligence than Clark, has enough control that it can harmlessly carry it’s pups in the same mouth with which it could crush a man’s leg.

Ardiem3

10-20-2007, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by euterpe
Clark didn’t know Knox was killing his patients when he first “killed” him. Lex informed him of that later in the hospital. And even if Clark did not intend to kill Knox, did he just assume he was dead without even checking? Why didn’t he pick up both Lex AND Knox and rush them both to the hospital and sort things out later. It’s not like it would be too much of a burden; the man tosses tractors, for crying out loud.

That’s always a problem I have had with Clark from the beginning. There have been many times when he’s tossed people aside or they were somehow “done in” and he just let it happen or left them. As far as I am concerned, standing by and letting someone die when you know you could do something to prevent it is just as bad as killing by your own hand.

I agree with the notion that Clark is King of Overkill. He should be able to knock someone out without sending them flying across the room. Even a dog with (I’m generously assuming) a lesser intelligence than Clark, has enough control that it can harmlessly carry it’s pups in the same mouth with which it could crush a man’s leg.

You guys are all forgetting, Clark has superhearing and heard the whole conversation, knowing that Lex was in danger. How else did Clark know where to go to find Lex and Knox? Clark knew what he was doing.

Mischael12

10-20-2007, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by TampaVille
You're technically correct, but I think you're missing HalJordan's point (excellently said, by the way, Hal). The whole "Superman doesn't kill" thing doesn't mean that he uses his powers willy nilly but the baddies always end up surviving. It means that he goes way out of his way to use less than what would be lethal force to neutralize his enemies without killing them.

You are correct in pointing out examples where Superman DID use excessive force, and just happened not to kill the villain. Those instances fall into one of two categories though:

1) Bad writing (such as the Al/Miles variety of "Supes doesn't kill)
2) Antiquated writing

Golden Age Superman is not the basis of SV. Superman's personality and ethics have evolved a lot over the last 68 years! :)

I would beg to differ, while Golden Age Superman is not the basis for SV, can't be argued that he is not a part of it. I understood Hal's point but i'm pointing out that this isn't the superman we've grown up. Clark in Smallville isn't Golden age, silver age, or modern superman...he's a mesh of all of them. Though right now i would argue that he comes off more as SuperBoy Prime than any of the other superman. But it isn't the first time we've seen clark use excessive force that should have killed people. He's thrown people into cars, threw a bowling ball at that kid ryans step dad.

He's done things that really should have resulted in deaths but they kept it off screen (Golden Age Superman). THis is the first time really we've seen him admitting to taking a life, but i think they are trying to give him that edge that many people feel that superman needs.

While most of us who grew up on the comics, or have taken the time to become comic book buffs admire superman's "no killing ideals" and what not, we are not the only spectrum out there. THere are people who want to stop seeing Boy-Scout Superman, and want to see one very much like Batman.

Sad in my opinion, but again this isn't SUperman, this is SV, if they want to stretch it a bit i say let them do it. As long as Clark never actually kills anyone I'll be fine.

smallviluva

10-20-2007, 07:50 PM

ok, firstly maybe i got this wrong but when clark was in the hospital with lex didnt he say soemthing about following the butcher? so why would he call him that before he knew he killed his patients,n then he said he followed him which meant he would of seen and heard him n lex and know he couldnt die.and would lex quesiton how he thought he killed him? clark could of sed he found him lying there after seein knox drive away (from following) but he said he attacked/killed him for him.

Ardiem3

10-20-2007, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by smallviluva
ok, firstly maybe i got this wrong but when clark was in the hospital with lex didnt he say soemthing about following the butcher? so why would he call him that before he knew he killed his patients,n then he said he followed him which meant he would of seen and heard him n lex and know he couldnt die.and would lex quesiton how he thought he killed him? clark could of sed he found him lying there after seein knox drive away (from following) but he said he attacked/killed him for him.

Lex called Knox a butcher because different patients of Knox's were ending up missing or worse so Lex just assumed he was at fault and was doing his own actions with his patients. Clark could have only heard so much using superhearing before he rushed off to save Lex, pushing him away. Clark wasnt waiting for much of an invitation to come and save someone, Lex.

euterpe

10-23-2007, 08:20 PM

Of course, he may have called Knox a butcher because of Sasha’s dead body wrapped in plastic that Knox dragged out of the trunk right before his altercations with Lex and Clark.

TampaVille

10-24-2007, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Mischael12
I would beg to differ, while Golden Age Superman is not the basis for SV, can't be argued that he is not a part of it. I understood Hal's point but i'm pointing out that this isn't the superman we've grown up. Clark in Smallville isn't Golden age, silver age, or modern superman...he's a mesh of all of them. Though right now i would argue that he comes off more as SuperBoy Prime than any of the other superman. But it isn't the first time we've seen clark use excessive force that should have killed people. He's thrown people into cars, threw a bowling ball at that kid ryans step dad.

He's done things that really should have resulted in deaths but they kept it off screen (Golden Age Superman). THis is the first time really we've seen him admitting to taking a life, but i think they are trying to give him that edge that many people feel that superman needs.

While most of us who grew up on the comics, or have taken the time to become comic book buffs admire superman's "no killing ideals" and what not, we are not the only spectrum out there. THere are people who want to stop seeing Boy-Scout Superman, and want to see one very much like Batman.

Sad in my opinion, but again this isn't SUperman, this is SV, if they want to stretch it a bit i say let them do it. As long as Clark never actually kills anyone I'll be fine.

You know... I think you're absolutely right. You've made some really good points I hadn't put together.

Mischael12

10-24-2007, 12:20 PM

As well Clark doesnt' have a luxury that superman has.

No one knows Superman's identity they know Clarks so he can't afford to actually take the time to dismantle a villain. To let them fight back or even get close enough to allow them to see his face.

He needs to resort to methods that are well cruder i would say. How many times has clark just superspeed in and just hit the person at huge speeds?

HalJordan4184

10-24-2007, 12:23 PM

Yes, because the entire point of Superman, is just making sure no one knows his secret identity.... or not. It's not about people not knowing who he is. It's about the fact, he'll just haphazardly kill them, because he's too lazy to take the right approach. Clark Kent, is not supposed to be vigilante extrordinaire, who goes all the way when the law men can't. That's simply not the character, and no matter how many times the writers try to say that is what Clark Kent is like, they will quite simply be wrong.

Mischael12

10-24-2007, 12:36 PM

that is true it isn't what Clark Kent is like, but this isn't the clark kent mild mannered report, this is a clark kent who is more realistic(well how they want it to be) he's not perfect, he's not super smart, he isn't super determined, he just is Clark Kent. A man who wants a normal life but can't have it, and i think that frustration is starting to get to him. He's actions are like i said very much like Super Boy Prime, a person trying to show that they are a hero; but it holds parts of the other supermen as well. He desires to live a normal life

I personally would like Clark to solve his things through thinking, through wits, and he has done that before, but its always when he is acting in the shadows, until he dons the cape i think we can expect more of clark just rushing to the rescue.

Hell there were times when he could have saved the villain and the victim, but he saved the victim especially in cases of his family and friends.

The problem i would say with the way they are showing this clark kent is that we don't get a good enough character development from him. We know he wants to be normal but ever since he left high school we haven't seen that struggle, so its hard to say well he is frustrated because what we see is a clark kent who is just worried about what the person he loves would think.

The world finding his secret is more to because his parents didn't want them too, with them gone now we can definitely see that recklessness that has been itching to come out.

Sigh this entire post made no sense to me...sorry.

mistaguitarmasta

10-24-2007, 01:00 PM

i agree with a lot of things that were said here. first, i think the fact that clark said "it made him sick" that he killed someone proves that he's NOT okay with killing. he's not superman yet (and at this rate he might never be. thanks TPTB.)

of course the other possibility is that he could have used superhearing to listen in on the conversation, pummeled knox knowing he wouldn't harm him, and then pretended to be upset in front of lex in the hospital.

Mischael12

10-24-2007, 01:13 PM

Point is Clark should never have had to use such excessive force, but the thing is i'm not going to cry about it because i know this isn't the Superman I've grown up with, its not the same.

And i'm always willing to give things the chance even if they change things around. Who knows maybe soon in the comic books we may see a superman who is more willing to kill.

Ardiem3

10-24-2007, 01:43 PM

I think people are just looking too much into it. Clark heard from a far that Curtis was about to harm Lex, so instead of Lex dying, he pushed Knox aside to save Lex, end of story.

HalJordan4184

10-24-2007, 06:28 PM

It's not the end of the story. If he simply shoved know aside, that would be the end of story. Instead he tosses him like thirty feet, and electorcutes him. That's not shoving him aside.

Mischael12

10-24-2007, 06:41 PM

The point is the shoving aside wouldn't have killed him...somehow...its the electrocution that would have.

Ardiem3

10-24-2007, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
It's not the end of the story. If he simply shoved know aside, that would be the end of story. Instead he tosses him like thirty feet, and electorcutes him. That's not shoving him aside.

Yea, it is the end. Shoving aside in Clarks world, is sending him feet away. Clark heard that he was the villain and about to hurt Lex from a far, thats why he knew where to go to meet them. He didnt just find the spot randomly. He decided, possibly seriously hurt the villain of the situation, or have the villain hurt the innocent person at the time, Lex.

HalJordan4184

10-25-2007, 06:57 AM

How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

Mischael12

10-25-2007, 12:19 PM

With this Clark if your an enemy you get the half treatment. He isn't the first villain we've seen him do things too that were pretty f'ed up.

Like that Kid Ryans step dad, i kept thinkin when he hit him with that bowling ball there is no way he could have survived that.

HalJordan4184

10-25-2007, 01:17 PM

I know this isn't the first thing he's done to a bad guy, but that still doesn't mean I think it's okay. It's a continuing problem with the character.

TampaVille

10-25-2007, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

Hal, I don’t know what I’d do without you. This is the 2nd or 3rd thread where you’ve clarified much more vividly a point I tried making earlier. I know some people feel that the SV producers are trying to give their incarnation of CK more ‘edge,’ but there is a difference between ‘edge’ and blatant murder. Whether or not the victim actually dies isn't the point. With the powers at Clark's disposal, it is almost unimaginable that he'd end up in a situation where he realistically had no choice but to kill a normal mortal (as he believed Knox to be).

Ardiem3

10-25-2007, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
How is shoving aside in Clark's world sending him feet away. I guess this means handshakes in Clark's world, are turning every bone in your hand to powder then, since he obviously can't control his own strength.

Clark has exhibited so many options in the past. He has knocked out mutiple characters in the past, by merely tapping them on the noggin. Sure, they get up with a headache, but they are no worse for wear. But suddenly, if it's a bad guy, this approach seems to go out the window, the least damage Clark can do, is toss someone thirty feet, into something that kills them, and all he has to say is, my bad.

The bottom line is, Clark not only did something that's illegal in the real world, and morally shady, he did it for no reason, as he's already shown other, less dangerous methods of subduing "normal" people. Curtixs Knox was no threat to Clark, so Clark had no cause, or reason to "kill" him.

Dont be smart, so is that why when Bizarro Clark shoved Lex in "Bizarro," didnt kill him? Clark knows what hes doing and did. Clark shoved him aside because he heard from afar that Lex was going to be killed, thats why he knew where the were, so to have a villain killed to save an innocent person at the time, is the price that must be paid.

HalJordan4184

10-26-2007, 03:33 PM

Yes, Clark knew he just committed an unecessary murder, and that is a complete violation of everything the character supposedly is.

TampaVille

10-26-2007, 05:56 PM

Ardiem, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but I think it's safe to say Hal wasn't implying Clark should have let Lex die. Unless I'm mistaken, the point HalJordan was trying to make was that there were any number of ways Clark could have stopped Knox without hurling him at a hundred miles an hour into an electrical transformer. He could have patted him on the head, the way he did with Pete in Nicodemus. He could have just kicked his feet out from underneath him and then held his arms down. Heck, he could have run into the next county, gotten some rope from the local hardware store, paid for it as fast as he paid for the maple syrup, run back, and tied Knox up, all before anybody had even realized anything had happened.

You state, "Clark knows what he's doing and did." That would mean that he knowingly killed Dr. Knox ("It makes me sick knowing that I took his life to save yours") when he did not have to. That is a desecration, not just of the modern Superman, but of ALL iterations of Superman. No Supes would ever kill a man if he didn't have to, and as HalJordan has pointed out quite succinctly, Clark did not have to kill Knox.

Ardiem3

10-27-2007, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by TampaVille
Ardiem, I don't want to put words in Hal's mouth, but I think it's safe to say Hal wasn't implying Clark should have let Lex die. Unless I'm mistaken, the point HalJordan was trying to make was that there were any number of ways Clark could have stopped Knox without hurling him at a hundred miles an hour into an electrical transformer. He could have patted him on the head, the way he did with Pete in Nicodemus. He could have just kicked his feet out from underneath him and then held his arms down. Heck, he could have run into the next county, gotten some rope from the local hardware store, paid for it as fast as he paid for the maple syrup, run back, and tied Knox up, all before anybody had even realized anything had happened.

You state, "Clark knows what he's doing and did." That would mean that he knowingly killed Dr. Knox ("It makes me sick knowing that I took his life to save yours") when he did not have to. That is a desecration, not just of the modern Superman, but of ALL iterations of Superman. No Supes would ever kill a man if he didn't have to, and as HalJordan has pointed out quite succinctly, Clark did not have to kill Knox.

I think that this is a time when were just looking too deep into it. Clark isnt Superman right now, hes still learning from his triumpths and mistakes like every hero does and will do. Clark pushed Knox aside to save Lex, careless, mabye, but its always for the greater good. Perhaps Clark overheard that Knox was still alive from being shot, miles away, thats why he knew where the were, so he simply shoved them aside to get Lex away and to deal qith Knox later where there werent any chances of Lex seeing him use any of his powers.... possibility, yes.. :D

TampaVille

10-27-2007, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Ardiem3
I think that this is a time when were just looking too deep into it. Clark isnt Superman right now, hes still learning from his triumpths and mistakes like every hero does and will do. Clark pushed Knox aside to save Lex, careless, mabye, but its always for the greater good. Perhaps Clark overheard that Knox was still alive from being shot, miles away, thats why he knew where the were, so he simply shoved them aside to get Lex away and to deal qith Knox later where there werent any chances of Lex seeing him use any of his powers.... possibility, yes.. :D

I've heard the "Clark isn't Superman yet" argument, and though I will admit that it is not completely without merit in every situation, I don't find it to be terribly compelling for the most part. Allow me to explain.

Superman's value for human life isn't something that he comes into later in his life. It is ingrained into him in the most fundamental way. From his earliest childhood, it was instilled into him by his parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. To say that Clark isn't Superman yet, so he doesn't need to care as much about protecting human life, is to ignore what it is about Superman that makes that respect for life so powerful.

More importantly still is the fact that throwing Knox aside wasn't just "careless," as you put it. Clark has a vast array of abilities at his disposal. I outlined a few possibilities in my last post. Clark did not simply get Knox out of the way to be dealt with later. He killed him, and in a somewhat brutal fashion, when nonlethal alternatives were easily available to deal with the situation. It would be like having a taser in one hand and a fully automatic AK-47 equipped with armor piercing rounds in the other, and choosing to go with the machine gun rather than the nonlethal taser.

Ardiem3

10-27-2007, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by TampaVille
I've heard the "Clark isn't Superman yet" argument, and though I will admit that it is not completely without merit in every situation, I don't find it to be terribly compelling for the most part. Allow me to explain.

Superman's value for human life isn't something that he comes into later in his life. It is ingrained into him in the most fundamental way. From his earliest childhood, it was instilled into him by his parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent. To say that Clark isn't Superman yet, so he doesn't need to care as much about protecting human life, is to ignore what it is about Superman that makes that respect for life so powerful.

More importantly still is the fact that throwing Knox aside wasn't just "careless," as you put it. Clark has a vast array of abilities at his disposal. I outlined a few possibilities in my last post. Clark did not simply get Knox out of the way to be dealt with later. He killed him, and in a somewhat brutal fashion, when nonlethal alternatives were easily available to deal with the situation. It would be like having a taser in one hand and a fully automatic AK-47 equipped with armor piercing rounds in the other, and choosing to go with the machine gun rather than the nonlethal taser.

Every hero makes mistakes is what i meant when i said that hes not officially Superman yet because to my knowledge, Superman dosent make mistakes, but Clark Kent can because hes learning to become the hero the whole world will look up to. Knox was the bad guy, Clark threw him aside, which would have killed him, if he werent immortal, what im saying is, how do we know that Clark didnt hear that Knox was immortal and did toss him aside to be dealt with later?

HalJordan4184

10-27-2007, 09:23 PM

Because CLark clearly says to Lex in the hospital, "It makes me sick to think i took a life for you". If Clark heard Knox was immortal, and the fact that Lex was unconscious for Clark's entrance, makes this line totally useless if Clark knew. He didn't know, and he thought he perfectly well did kill Knox, and he was quite okay with it, other than some contempt. I even took that to be more contempt he killed someone in an attempt to save Lex, more than he killed someone in general.

Superman does make mistakes. However, CLark didn't make a simple mistake. He doesn't have a reason he did what he did. He just simply did it, without thinking. That's something jon and martha supposedly instilled in him from the get go, that he had to be careful, and moderate his strength and powers. Instead, for almost the whole run of the show, Clark has been tossing people fifty feet, and hitting them at mach ten.

Mischael12

10-27-2007, 09:39 PM

Again this smallville Clark is edgy; Clark right now doesn't have these regulators on him anymore.

He lost his dad, and his mom is no longer around; we are going to see him make so many more mistakes and I think this is what they are trying to show.

They want to show the reason why Superman is the way he is. Like i said there are a lot of people out there who don't like Superman because he is so "perfect" he hasn't made faults, even as Clark Kent growing up we have this perfect image of him.

I think they want to show the reason why he is like that; that the Superman as God image isn't so realistic.

TampaVille

10-28-2007, 07:34 AM

AHHHH!!! Hal and I aren't saying Supes/CK should be a perfect Godlike being! We're saying that every iteration of Superman, no matter how 'edgy,' has had it instilled into him from a very young age to respect human life. NO Superman, NO Clark Kent, would ever knowingly or willingly do something which would probably kill a person if an equally good and less lethal alternative were available to him. That is not a 'mistake.' Trusting Lex, there's a mistake. Not spending more time finding the evil crystal... mistake. Killing somebody when he could just pat him on the head... murder. Not mistake. Murder. Violation of everything that his folks raised him to be. That doesn't change just because his mother is working in Washington.

HalJordan4184

10-28-2007, 08:41 AM

Exactly.

Clark's mistake, is akin to a cop shooting a 14 year old in a fist fight with another 14 year old. Rather than simply break up the fight, and work it out, you just kill the person, then they can never bother you again.

If Clark were a cop, he'd already be in jail.

And like Tampaville said, mistakes I can take. However, there are mistakes that would be in character for CLark make, and mistakes that go against his character. Killing is not a "mistake" he can make.

Mischael12

10-28-2007, 11:22 AM

Note the quotations around perfect?

Obviously there is, but honestly do you think that the directors are thinking people are going to look so deeply into it? The guy survived right? Thats why they did it, only reason they probably even had the line in it. To show that he was immortal, like i said call it what you will, but i honestly think thats the path they are taking i don't agree, but i understand the point.

Again i'm not condoning what he did, and mistake isn't the best term to use, but they want to show him acting differently. Instilled in him since youth, perhaps but from what i saw of the show, clark always wanted to act out, show what he was capable of.

Now my problem is that he said that he had to take a life for Lex's like that, and if Knox could over power lex, how did Clark overpower Knox? And Lex of course didn't even take that into consideration unto how did Clark do it? but whatever. Again i don't agree with it, i would rather them never put clark into these positions, but again not the first time we've seen him do stuff like this.

President_Luthor

10-28-2007, 11:28 AM

SV Clark's jury-judge-executioner tendencies would seem to give further justification for Batman to keep a stash of kryptonite on reserve ... to keep the homicidal kid from Smallville in line! I think with each life taken, it apparently gets easier for him. In another light, Clark's comment to Lex makes it seem like he's only sick about having killed 'because' of Lex, not sick about the killing itself.

Bruce Wayne better start stockpiling those green meteor rocks now and get a head start - LOL!

Ardiem3

10-28-2007, 03:38 PM

My gosh, can we just move on.. He attemtped to kill a bad guy, would you of wanted him to give Knox a hug? : ) lol

TampaVille

10-28-2007, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by President_Luthor
Bruce Wayne better start stockpiling those green meteor rocks now and get a head start - LOL!

LOL, definitely. Especially since SV Clark seems to lose control of himself at least once per season (be it thanks to red kryptonite, black kryptonite, the short-lived silver kryptonite, or other...)

Originally posted by Ardiem3
My gosh, can we just move on.. He attemtped to kill a bad guy, would you of wanted him to give Knox a hug? : ) lol

Nope... I'd have wanted him to pat him on the head! LOL

But you're right. At this point we're all just repeating the same old things. If you haven't been convinced by me and Hal yet, you won't ever be. It's time to move on.

Ardiem3

10-28-2007, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by TampaVille
LOL, definitely. Especially since SV Clark seems to lose control of himself at least once per season (be it thanks to red kryptonite, black kryptonite, the short-lived silver kryptonite, or other...)

Nope... I'd have wanted him to pat him on the head! LOL

But you're right. At this point we're all just repeating the same old things. If you haven't been convinced by me and Hal yet, you won't ever be. It's time to move on.

We all have varying and different point of views and we can just agree to disagree on some things. The writers dont always pull a 100% on every episode and one thing they wrote, plot hole or not, shouldnt affect the whole series or character because different people can have different takes on it. Its just, confusing and hard to discuss sometimes about different things but its all good :D

HalJordan4184

10-28-2007, 11:33 PM

There are things I can agree to disagree on, Superman/Clark Kent killing, is not one of them. It's not a matter of having a different take. The character simply doesn't kill, and resort to over the top uses of force.

pizzaguy19

05-05-2008, 04:26 AM

Umm....Clark arrived just in time to keep Knox from killing Lex. He kocked him out of the way, and accidently into power lines which he thought killed knox, a guy who was killing all of his patients.

Clark did not intentionally try to kill Knox, just like at the end when he says to MM, "You didn't kill him did you?".

my thoughts exactly.

Sunny8

12-15-2008, 10:47 AM

Clark did feel remorse when he thought he killed. He told Lex that it "makes me sick to think that I had to take a life for yours." Then Lex tells him that Dr. Knox is not dead. What was Clark supposed to do? Cry? He said that he felt bad. He does not show his emotions. He showed more emotions when Lana left him that 'Dear John' video than I even saw when his father died. He might feel something but he does not express it.

Kevin24

12-15-2008, 12:31 PM

Yes, Clark did feel remorse about Dr. Knox. I think people need to realize that he didn't kill Dr. Knox so all this talk is really just speculation regarding if Dr. Knox was really a human and he did that. Fact is, he isn't and didn't die...

bychance

12-17-2008, 01:25 AM