Has Clark ever really crossed the moral line to save someone?

[MrZeppo]

Lana told Clark that he can't say he's never crossed a moral line to save someone. But looking back has he really done that? He has lied a lot, but everyone lies. Even Superman lies. But I've never really felt Clark has ever really crossed a moral line, most of the time he's acted in self defense or the defense of others...

[MidgardDragon]

I don't think he has to the extent that she was willing to. But he's also been on the edge and willing to go that far before remembering what he stands for before. With Lana, though, she didn't pull back until someone (Clark) stopped her. I don't think he's ever been that far over the line. He has killed before, but has yet to do so on purpose.

[CrazyforKal]

I guess it depends on your definition of moral line. But that's a whole can of worms...

[MrZeppo]

That whole conversation bothered me. The things that Lana did are not things Clark would do. When she said she wouldn't justify going to extremes to protect the person she loves... That's not something Clark would ever say. (Mostly because we've rarely seen him stand up like that except for Jor-El.) She did sound like Lex. She admitted she made a mess of things, but she wasn't even open to discussing it or the things she did wrong. And Clark just stood there and accepted all the responsibiltiy for it all. I am glad that after trying to lie, she finally admits she has to take responsibilities for the choices she's made in her life.

[Superbeard]

Never killed intentionally, I don't think. Hard to recall, with all the fights where the villain ended up dead, but Clark didn't kill them directly....

[chantal]

Originally posted by MrZeppo
I am glad that after trying to lie, she finally admits she has to take responsibilities for the choices she's made in her life.

But she's not taking responsibility. She's letting Clark, Lex, Lionel, and now Chloe, Lois and Grant cover up for crimes that should have her in jail! How is that taking responsibility?

[xrayvision]

Well what he did to help Pete in Velocity was against his moral code. Dante died, but that was his own fault for trying to kill Pete prompting Clark to pull the kryptofuel line and soak the road with it.

Though Pete learned after that one instance and didn't put Clark in that situation again. Instead he did something no other friend of his did and was almost killed by Agent Loder after refusing to tell him Clark's secret.

[maryjanewatson]

Originally posted by xrayvision
Well what he did to help Pete in Velocity was against his moral code. Dante died, but that was his own fault for trying to kill Pete prompting Clark to pull the kryptofuel line and soak the road with it.

Though Pete learned after that one instance and didn't put Clark in that situation again. Instead he did something no other friend of his did and was almost killed by Agent Loder after refusing to tell him Clark's secret.
that episode immediately came to mind during that conversation between clark and lana. but the thing is, clark did it very reluctantly, and he definitely let pete know that. Clark was quite upset that pete put him in that position.

[coco#1]

clarke has only crossedthe line on red k otherwise no

[TampaVille]

Well... two instances spring to mind as candidates. I'm sure I could come up with several more if I tried.

1) Clark turns back time to save Lana, knowing somebody else will die instead. Seems to cross the moral line.

2) I realize this one is very random, but early on in the show, first season I believe, in the episode Rogue, Clark is invited to an art show in Metropolis. He steps out front for some air. He sees a bus hurdling towards a homeless man. The driver has had a heart attack I think. Clark stops the bus by planting his feet in the ground and letting it smash into him. The whole front end of the bus gets demolished. It's very difficult to believe that the bus driver wasn't killed instantly (assuming he'd survived the heart attack). And yes, random, but it does seem to cross the line.

[migo]

#2 - the laws of physics don't work normally in Smallville, so that doesn't apply. Every time a Kryptonian sends someone flying they should be seriously injured or dead, they only end up unconscious without a concussion though.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by migo
#2 - the laws of physics don't work normally in Smallville, so that doesn't apply. Every time a Kryptonian sends someone flying they should be seriously injured or dead, they only end up unconscious without a concussion though.

Oh don't worry, I QUITE agree with that one. I've gotten into several discussions on the matter. Clark moving at superspeed is not a guy moving fast, he is an invulnerable missile moving at many times the speed of sound, lol. In Rogue though, I wouldn't be talking about blunt force trauma. The whole front part of the bus got smashed in. Unless the bus driver was a latter day Mr. Fantastic who had fallen on some tough times, he was toast, no matter how they want to skew physics. :)

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

I recall a certain conversation last week where Clark tells Lex how he "hated that he had to kill so save lex", or something along those lines.

[daughter of the child]

ah i remember that line, but can't place where it came from. the thing is, lana sets out to kill for what happened in the past, clark sets out to save to prevent the future. everytime he saves lex, which i've lost count now, although he doesn't like lex, you don't see him hesitate at all- nor did lana hesitate to advance on him wen he tried to stop her from killing lex. its sad that we've lost lana to darkness.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
I recall a certain conversation last week where Clark tells Lex how he "hated that he had to kill so save lex", or something along those lines.

It was in Cure. Clark believes he has killed Dr. Knox to save Lex. There is a big thread on whether that was moral or immoral in the Cure section.

[MozartRequiem]

"1) Clark turns back time to save Lana, knowing somebody else will die instead. Seems to cross the moral line."

Clark didn't know that it would kill someone else. I don't think Clark would take that risk. Jor-El merely said, "Nature will find a balance," which, to all of us viewers watching, certainly indicates someone else will die, but to Clark, who was in such a state of bewilderment, probably just sounded cryptic and he was like, "whatever, I have to save Lana."

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by MozartRequiem
"1) Clark turns back time to save Lana, knowing somebody else will die instead. Seems to cross the moral line."

Clark didn't know that it would kill someone else. I don't think Clark would take that risk. Jor-El merely said, "Nature will find a balance," which, to all of us viewers watching, certainly indicates someone else will die, but to Clark, who was in such a state of bewilderment, probably just sounded cryptic and he was like, "whatever, I have to save Lana."

Good points, all. It seems to step over the moral line one way or the other though. Either he knew somebody else would be harmed, and that was morally ambiguous, or he didn't take the 2 seconds it might require to figure out that Jor-El was giving him a pretty dire warning, in which case he would be guilty of some pretty severe negligence.

At any rate, I was just throwing that out there. I don't feel strongly enough about the moral ambiguity in that situation to make a stronger argument in favor of it. You raise good, valid points. It's probably up as a matter of opinion.

[nightshadz]

What about the Sandman that killed Alicia in season 4. Clark went after that guy full of rage. He put his hands around his neck squeezing tighter and tighter and right before he was about to kill him, Lois comes in and calms him down.

I'm sure if Lois didn't show up, that kid's head would have popped off.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by nightshadz
What about the Sandman that killed Alicia in season 4. Clark went after that guy full of rage. He put his hands around his neck squeezing tighter and tighter and right before he was about to kill him, Lois comes in and calms him down.

I'm sure if Lois didn't show up, that kid's head would have popped off.

Good one!

I don't exactly recall what Lana said to him. Was it, "You can't say you've never, yada yada, to SAVE someone," or was it something else? Because that wasn't saving somebody so much as... well... murderous rage, lol.

[bobowayney]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
I recall a certain conversation last week where Clark tells Lex how he "hated that he had to kill so save lex", or something along those lines. That came from "Cure", Curtis Knox (Dean Cain) was about to kill Lex, Clark threw him into electric cables and it seemed as if Dr. Knox had been electrocuted - which if he hadn't been immortal, he would have been

[kryptonaidxh]

:D :) if the definition of moral line is Clark hidding the secret of his real origins all this seasons, then he´s completely justified., and he was right, he trusted Lana and the evil witch uses his powers for harming people in her own benefict., Clark was a stupid for telling her his secret, now the b**ch has used it as an excuse for doing all the damage she wants, she also hited Clark.:)

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

There was also the time where Clark saves Lana as she falls with her "bodyguard" into Lex's mansion, he could have saved them both, he chose not to save the bodyguard.

[InAFlash]

I don't have the best memory when it comes to this show, but did'nt Clark nearly kill Lionel in the second to last episode of season 6? It was after Lana tells him that Lionel had forced her to marry Lex by threatening to kill Clark. Clark then goes to Luthercorp and is just about to kill Lionel when the Martian Manhunter comes in and stops him, explaining to him that Lionel is on their side.

Now in that scene before the Martian Manhunter shows up Clark is about to kill Lionel because he feels he is a threat to himself and Lana. Isn't that what Lana was doing by kidnapping Lionel early in this season? Protecting Clark and herself? I don't recall any conversations that Clark and Lana had early in this season regarding the fact that Lionel is good. It would have been nice if Clark would have told her.

I'm not defending Lana, she certainly crossed the line last night by trying to kill Lex. But when someone is just given superpowers it's difficult to predict how they would act no matter how good the person seems before that happens. Maybe she felt that she would soon lose the powers and needed to take care of Lex while she had the chance. Because Clark will always have his powers maybe he does'nt feel that strongly about stopping Lex. Maybe he feels that if Lex ever gets out of line he would stop him when that happens.

Anyway, I don't think Lana is as dark as everyone seems to think. She's dealing with the darkness just like most of the good characters in the show. Clark, Chloe, and Jonathon have all crossed over into that dark place at different times in the show. Is everyone forgetting that Jonathon gave himself a heart attack by going after Lionel to protect Clark?

[HalJordan4184]

Lana is as dark as we think. That was the point of the episode. Lana is going down a parallal path to Lex. She's not the pink princess Clark thought she was.

As far as crossing the moral line, Clark has, quite a bit. Remember that whole red K crime spree in metropolis in season three. That was all to "protect everyone he loves". He was using red k like an addict uses crack, to escape his problems, and "save" everyone from the danger he presents.

There have been so many instances of the bad guy falling on their own sword, while Clark watches it's not even funny. For the character they are trying to portray, that's over the moral line. No one dies on Clark Kent's watch if he can save them. That includes suicides, and indirectly killing yourself if you are the bad guy. However, CLark, the man who can run to honduras in two seconds, can't take any time to stop someone from running themselves through with a stake, falling off buildings, or any of the number of other ways bad guys have bitten the dust.

Curtis Knox is a whole other story. He intentionally killed someone to save Lex, when that death was totally unnecessary, as the character had no special powers Clark was aware of.

[euterpe]

Originally posted by chantal
But she's not taking responsibility. She's letting Clark, Lex, Lionel, and now Chloe, Lois and Grant cover up for crimes that should have her in jail! How is that taking responsibility?
But then, did Clark ever take responsibility for the crimes he committed in Metropolis during his three month crime spree? By all rights he should also be in prison right now. And before everyone jumps to the “But he was on Red K” excuse…Clark voluntarily was on the Red-K, knew exactly what he was doing, could have taken off the red-K ring whenever he wanted (and did on occasion) and thus is fully culpable for every crime he committed. But he never had to answer to the Metropolis PD or citizens for his actions.

Of course, he did call anonymously and let them know where the remainder of the stolen money that he DIDN’T spend was located. I guess that justifies things enough in his mind.

And I agree that the view on this topic depends solely on the viewers definition of morality. In my opinion, Clark has crossed that line more times than I can count.

[CountryGirl84]

I've said it many times that I don't feel like any of these characters can become the ones we know they are supposed to be as adults. Keep in mind that they are pretty much adults now as well so the, they're just young and stupid excuse, can't even hold up anymore. I enjoy watching Smallville but I just don't recognize any of the future characters in the ones that Al/Miles have created. I see it as an alterverse of Superman and then I don't have so many problems with it.

[Khyla]

GREAT THREAD! So happy to see this!

That line of Lana's definitely didn't sit with me right and did have me wondering too.

I really don't think Clark himself feels that he's ever intentionally crossed the moral line to save someone, although he beats himself up continuously over that kind of thing, while those close to him try to convince him he needs to get off the guilt trip.


---------------------------------------------------------

Also I think there is a big difference between crossing the moral line and crossing the legal line.

Crossing the moral line is about making an intentional personal decision or judgment to perform a certain act that goes against what you yourself know in your heart to be wrong, against the laws of God or Nature or whatever you believe in.

Putting on the Red K ring was simply a severely distressed teenager's way of coping with the utter despair and self-loathing he was experiencing at the time; not an intentional decision to cross the moral line, but a way to take his own pain away, because he knew it made him feel good.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Anytime his actions have resulted in someone's death or in Dr. Knox's case, thought to be dead, it was NEVER with his intent to do so, and he was always so remorseful, and so guilt-stricken beyond reason, even when they were nothing but monsters with no humanity of their own. (except for that vine-lady in Wither, i don't think he felt bad about killing that)

I admit he did come very close to killing Alicia's murderer, and even if he had, the fact that the guy was more of a monster like the Zoners than a human, would get him off the hook in my book :)


So my answer is NO, Clark has never really crossed the moral line to save someone, and Lana was out of line saying so. They haven't really ever gotten to know each other very well. If they had, she would know better.

[Lostfan588]

Oh yes....TEMPEST and saving Lana!!!! :mad: :lol:

[HalJordan4184]

Originally posted by Khyla
GREAT THREAD! So happy to see this!

That line of Lana's definitely didn't sit with me right and did have me wondering too.

I really don't think Clark himself feels that he's ever intentionally crossed the moral line to save someone, although he beats himself up continuously over that kind of thing, while those close to him try to convince him he needs to get off the guilt trip.


---------------------------------------------------------

Also I think there is a big difference between crossing the moral line and crossing the legal line.

Crossing the moral line is about making an intentional personal decision or judgment to perform a certain act that goes against what you yourself know in your heart to be wrong, against the laws of God or Nature or whatever you believe in.

Putting on the Red K ring was simply a severely distressed teenager's way of coping with the utter despair and self-loathing he was experiencing at the time; not an intentional decision to cross the moral line, but a way to take his own pain away, because he knew it made him feel good.


---------------------------------------------------------------
Anytime his actions have resulted in someone's death or in Dr. Knox's case, thought to be dead, it was NEVER with his intent to do so, and he was always so remorseful, and so guilt-stricken beyond reason, even when they were nothing but monsters with no humanity of their own. (except for that vine-lady in Wither, i don't think he felt bad about killing that)

I admit he did come very close to killing Alicia's murderer, and even if he had, the fact that the guy was more of a monster like the Zoners than a human, would get him off the hook in my book :)


So my answer is NO, Clark has never really crossed the moral line to save someone, and Lana was out of line saying so. They haven't really ever gotten to know each other very well. If they had, she would know better.

It was totally across the moral line, what Clark did Curtis Knox. What did he think was going to happen, when he tossed a perfectly normal human being, with the force of a cruise missle, into a transformer box running high voltage through it? He knew it would kill a person, and he did it anyway, without it being necessary. If he were a cop, he could be brought up on charges. Just because he's Clark, and he was trying to save Lex, doesn't make the bad guys life expendable.

I have also never seen Clark so "guilt stricken". He's perfectly fine with everything he's ever done, and that's the problem.

As far as the red k, he was using the kryptonian equivalent of crack, intentionally, repeated times. If it's not immoral for him, any crack head, meth head, heroin addict, and any other drug user should be given a free pass as well, as most of them are using to escape their pain too, and were also confused at one point.

[kryptonaidxh]

:( of course he has, that´s another thing that Al&Miles are scrubbing about Smallville to, it´s really bad that they make Clark does things like apologizing the evil things that Lana is doing, and even balming himself or blaming something or someone else for the fails of that b**ch, originally she was just a childhood sweetheart, I don´t know what the hell is she doing in Smallville yet, Clark definetely must wake up of his stupid pink fairy tale and move on.:p :)

[Khyla]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
It was totally across the moral line, what Clark did Curtis Knox. What did he think was going to happen, when he tossed a perfectly normal human being, with the force of a cruise missle, into a transformer box running high voltage through it? He knew it would kill a person, and he did it anyway, without it being necessary. If he were a cop, he could be brought up on charges. Just because he's Clark, and he was trying to save Lex, doesn't make the bad guys life expendable. you can chalk it up to bad writing, but Clark obviously did not intend to throw Knox into something that would purposely result in his death. it looked like he just pushed him out of the way, and not being used to using his super strength all the time, he doesn't always have complete control of the outcome (He's not Superman yet, remember)


I have also never seen Clark so "guilt stricken". He's perfectly fine with everything he's ever done, and that's the problem.
Are you serious , or are you just trying to prod me for the hell of it? :)

His guilt-trips even get to the point that fans complain about his over-doing it. Even when the fight in COMBAT, indirectly resulted in Titan's death, he still felt guilty, for cryin out loud! (that guy was soulless monster, and Clark was not only saving others from certain death by Titan's hands, but himself as well) Do you need more examples, lines from scripts, etc.? there's plenty of them! :)


As far as the red k, he was using the kryptonian equivalent of crack, intentionally, repeated times. If it's not immoral for him, any crack head, meth head, heroin addict, and any other drug user should be given a free pass as well, as most of them are using to escape their pain too, and were also confused at one point. [/B]

the question was, 'has he crossed the moral line to save someone'.

Who was he 'saving' when he decided to put on the Red K ring?? :confused: (other than maybe saving himself from doing something worse, like self-mutilation or suicide)

[All about Clark]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
It was totally across the moral line, what Clark did Curtis Knox. What did he think was going to happen, when he tossed a perfectly normal human being, with the force of a cruise missle, into a transformer box running high voltage through it?

I never believed that Clark realized that when he shoved Knox he would hit the transformer box, I really saw that as an accident.

However, with Titan, even though he fell on his own blade, I saw Clark as trying to murder him, he knew what he was there to do. To kill Titan before Titan killed him in order to save countless others.

With both Titan and Gloria, his moral code scues (sp?) because they are not human. This is not their home.

With redK and being so young, I can forgive this, he didn't know what he was doing and he was in extreme pain/anguish.

So regarding the moral line, I don't think he's crossed it with humans, but he has with non-humans.

[CDLBLUE]

Anyone who possesses great power commits a crime, because no one should have the power of life and death over other men, the only way to expiate that crime, the power of life and death ,is the utmost responsibility which one uses that power, Clark has expiated that crime, by his moral code, his honor, his integrity, and the utmost responsibility by which he has used that power, that is the quintessence of his character, Lana acted as the very antithesis of his moral code, she used the great powers that she received from him to hurt other people, to see retitration, and to seek revenge, contrast that with Clark repeated rescues of Whitney, Jason, Lex all rivals for her affection, within that difference of character, of values, and of moral judgement will be the end of the Clark/Lana story.

[Barogrei]

Khyla- "Also I think there is a big difference between crossing the moral line and crossing the legal line.

Crossing the moral line is about making an intentional personal decision or judgment to perform a certain act that goes against what you yourself know in your heart to be wrong, against the laws of God or Nature or whatever you believe in.

Putting on the Red K ring was simply a severely distressed teenager's way of coping with the utter despair and self-loathing he was experiencing at the time; not an intentional decision to cross the moral line, but a way to take his own pain away, because he knew it made him feel good."

I disagree with both of your statements. To cross a moral line, you need not necessarily violate what you "in your heart" believe to be wrong, this view suggests that moral transgression is contingent entirely on your beliefs. For example, even if a detective believed that he was "in his heart" right, in framing an innocent man for murder in order that the rest of society would see an execution and order was restored to the community, he would still have committed a moral transgression (if this action was in fact a transgression, which many philosophers may argue). Lex Luthor may not necessarily go against what he believes to be right and wrong, when he imprisons the meteor infected, but he still has crossed a moral line, one that exists not relative to what Lex believes is right and wrong, but independent of it. If we accept that what constitutes morality, for an individual, is based entirely on what they personally believe, than we must accept that if one believed that rape or murder was permissible, or even mandated, that they would be commiting no transgressions in doing these horrendous acts. I believe the human "heart", as you describe it, differing, of course, from the organ that circulates blood throughout the body, may be a means of obtaining moral knowledge, but I doubt that it constitutes it. After all, what other human faculty could possibly unveil this truth? Your eyes can see colors and shapes, your ears can hear noises, your can touch things and feel. I doubt that the nose or tongue could taste or smell what morality is. The logical component of our minds can determine causal connections and warn us of contradictions, but it seems that some part of our mind, called "the heart", may be that which allows us to translate the empirical knowledge given us to our other senses to discern right from wrong. This is an epistemological question that merits much further discussion, however, I believe that it is ludicrous to say that this component of our mind, which you referred to as "the heart", does not simply discern morality, but actually constitutes it.

When Clark went on his excursion to Metropolis, wearing his Red Kryptonite ring, he was fully aware of the dangers he posed to others lives and property. He knew that, with the ring equipped, he was mercurial and had far less respect for the lives or wishes of others, and ceded the rights of others to whatever his immediate inclinations be, whether rambunctious, veangeful, or even lustful. Knowing the dangers he posed to others, he still relinquished his obligations to others in favor of an escape from his own pain. I definitely think that Clark knowingly did some wrong in allowing himself to pose such a danger to others, when clearly, as we saw in the episode, he had several instances where he could have abstained from the influence of Red Kryptonite. I believe you may be correct in saying that Clark's situation mitigated his guilt. He was drawn to this state of weakness, where he could not stand to live with his present self, due to a very human and meritorious element in himself, his guilt of causing the death of Martha's unborn child. However, clearly here, he made choices in which he understood the risks involved, and crossed moral line.


EDIT:
To CDLBlue: I fail to understand how having great power is an inherent wrong to which one must atone for. Is impotence then your greatest human virtue? Power is the means to guide the will. If this will is malevolent, than power will likey lead to wrongs being done to others. However, Clark Kent's will is benevolent, seeking to help others, and do good for the world, or at least at this stage those he currently feels affection for. I don't see how the possession of power automatically implies some bad, but rather it is neutral, something to be employed by the will toward whatever ends the will would have.

[Mello Penelo]

Originally posted by MozartRequiem
Clark didn't know that it would kill someone else. I don't think Clark would take that risk. Jor-El merely said, "Nature will find a balance," which, to all of us viewers watching, certainly indicates someone else will die, but to Clark, who was in such a state of bewilderment, probably just sounded cryptic and he was like, "whatever, I have to save Lana."

Clark knew someone had to die for him to live. If he saved Lana, then he knew someone else close to him would die. He went into that situation knowing full well he'd rather have someone else close to him die than Lana.

[Barogrei]

Heros do not tend to take the words of those they percieve as a force contrary to their will as absolutes. I think Clark had the naive belief that he could fully save the day, rescuing lava, and preventing the deaths of anyone close to him that he could. Remember, Clark would not accept that his mother was going to die, and it turned out that he was able to prevent her death. Although I know that Marth Kent's ailment stemmed from Brainiac,and not whatever fates Jor-el knew of (controlled?), I think that Clark, at that point, was going to try to do as much good for whoever was immediately in danger, and deal with cheating fate one person at a time. Unfortunately, he couldn't do this another time, and Johnathan Kent died. As Clark did not accept the knowledge Jor-el gave him as necessarily true, I do not think he was fully responsible as he could not know that causal connection completely, and would rather save one person, and gamble that Jor-el's final end was possibly avoidable, or Lana die, and guarantee one death when perhaps one death was avoidable. If someone were to hold a mother's child hostage, and tells her that she must allow him to die by his hands, or else, upon a later date, that hostage's sibling, who was currently with the mother, would die, it would make sense for the mother to accept the lunatic's bargain and get her son back, while trying to ensure the safety of the second son, so that the lunatic would fail to actualize his threat. Although you may protest that Jor-el's promise would necessarily be actualized, can you blame Clark for questioning that this being has such intimate knowledge of the universe's causal structure? In any case, either choices of Clark's would guarantee a maximum of one death, whereas allowing Lana's death would guarantee that that one death would happen, whereas not allowing it would open the possiblity (from Clark's viewpoint of understandable ignorance) of no deaths. He made the right choice.

[Mischael12]

I wonder all the time why clark has to squeeze so hard to kill someone. I mean yes dramatic effect, but seriously all those times he has chocked people...they should have ended up with a bruise larynx or something.

[Khyla]

i didn't say he never did anything wrong. I agree he's done a lot of things one can consider 'wrong', and has made a lot of bad choices. He's not perfect.

Crossing the moral line IMO means deliberately committing an act which violates accepted principles of what's right and what's wrong.

And it IS somewhat subjective, and often has to do with the context.

For the sake of argument, wouldn't some ppl consider that just the act of taking Lana's dead body to Jor-El to "Fix this!" a moral transgression in itself?

I believe when Lana used that line, she specifically meant he must have committed a specific immoral act, ie. killed someone intentionally, in order to save someone else.

to personally hold someone captive and torture them, or to kill someone outright in cold blood - that's immoral.


Originally posted by Mischael12
I wonder all the time why clark has to squeeze so hard to kill someone. I mean yes dramatic effect, but seriously all those times he has chocked people...they should have ended up with a bruise larynx or something.

I often saw that as him trying to constrain himself. I guess everyone sees what they want to see.
And he's never actually killed someone like that.

[aqgalaxy]

The thing is... Clark comes close to the moral line.. but never ever crosses it...

I mean he never killed Lexod despite the good it will cause... He never killed any murderous Meteor Freaks... Didn't really kill ANY Zoners, despite the urge and need to... He technically didn't kill Wes... he just overloaded him with the heatvison...

We see Clark head to the Line... stepping on it really but he never fully crosses it... that's what makes him different from Lex. Yes.. in the moment he would want to kill get to the line but he has NEVER crossed it.

[HalJordan4184]

Except when he has. With Clark's level of power, and the unique view of things that affords him, even being on what your or I would call the moral line, can be a trangression for Clark. There is no reason for Clark to go in and kill anyone, which on the show he has believed he has done, and the only reason he didn't, was because Knox was immortal. There is no reason for him to use excessive force, which he does all the time. Clark can be careful. He's been shown to have complete control over his strength and speed. The only time he lost control of it was Perry when Solar Flares were affecting his abilities.

But back to my point, excessive force, is crossing the moral line. That's intentionally inflicting more harm than is necessary to stop a perceived threat. Clark can take out half the people he fights with a tap to the head, like he's done for his friends. Instead, he flings them fifty feet into concrete, or brick walls, into electrical transformers, and anything else metal or masonry, and completely unforgiving to impact that happens to be around. Just because it's TV, doesn't suddenly make Clark's level of violence appropriate. I'm not above saying Superman needs to duke it out, and occasionally inflict some pain, and damage. However, against powerless human enemies, he doesn't need to inflict the same damage he does against superstrong meteor freaks, yet he does. That is a moral transgression.

[InAFlash]

I'm sorry but if we're to assume Lana crossed the moral line by trying to kill Lex. Then should'nt we assume that Clark did the same thing in last season's final episode to Lionel. I just watched the scene. Clark has his fist cocked and is ready to strike Lionel. Doing so would obviously kill Lionel. The Martian Manhunter then arrives and puts his hand in front of Clark's fist to stop him. What would have happend if MM had'nt arrived? It's the same situation in "Wrath". It appears Lana will kill Lex and then Clark arrives and stops her. You could say that Clark nearly killed Lionel to protect Lana and himself from Lionel. Which would justify his actions somewhat. But you can also say that Lana's intentions in trying to kill Lex were also to protect Clark and herself based on what she knows about Lex and his intentions. I can't see much of a difference between what Clark nearly did to Lionel and what Lana nearly did to Lex.

[Jaded Wolf]

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
I don't think he has to the extent that she was willing to. But he's also been on the edge and willing to go that far before remembering what he stands for before. With Lana, though, she didn't pull back until someone (Clark) stopped her. I don't think he's ever been that far over the line. He has killed before, but has yet to do so on purpose.

YEah which is why I just kind of blinked at the TV screen and went, "huh?". What ground does Lana have to based this on and furthermore did the writers forget everything they ever wrote up to this point? In all the seven years I have been watching Smallville I have never seen him cross the moral line except for when he was under the influence of red kryptonite. The difference here is that Lana is doing all this without any outside influence. She could argue that Les drove her to this but Lex is not forcing her to do anything. She ultimately has made the decision to do whatever it takes.

[BadToad]

As for the excessive force used on this show...and that doesn't just apply to Clark...I'm not going to hold that against any character. From the first season, the show has used that over-the-top, cartoonish sort of effect, and much more often then not, people come out of it unscathed, or with a little, bitty bruise over one eyebrow. Sure, we could see Clark carefully tapping people on the head to knock them out, but I think TPTB would also see that as far less visually entertaining, and they're right. People like their action and violence, and a gentile Clark is likely not going to cut it for most of the folks at home.

On the subject of Clark crossing the moral line, I think he has. But I think the difference, for me, is that its not a cold, calculated move from Clark. And it is almost always followed with some genuine reflection, or usually motivated by some extreme emotional event. Which isn't to suggest its right, only that it puts his behavior in context, and shows us someone that does seem to struggle with the moral line.

I think the real difference with Lana in this situation is the precise planning and cold execution, and the fact that this has been going for months. It suggests a whole other mindset then we've ever seen from Clark. He's lashed out violently in moments of extreme upset and despair. But a prolonged campaign of carefully planned vengeance? That I haven't seen from him.

Again, the 30' throws are a show thing, and that sort of unrealistic violence is evident all over the show. I don't see it as a Clark thing. YMMV.

[Mello Penelo]

Considering he's killed at least one person per episode, he's got to be worse in the police's eyes than the BTK Killer.

And taking the law into your own hands is crossing the line, too. Sheriff Adams was always pissed at Clark for entering crime scenes.

[BadToad]

Considering he's killed at least one person per episode, he's got to be worse in the police's eyes than the BTK Killer.

Huh??!! Are you talking about Clark here? He most certainly has NOT killed one person per episode.


And taking the law into your own hands is crossing the line, too. Sheriff Adams was always pissed at Clark for entering crime scenes.

Well then, I guess pretty much every superhero sucks. They all take the law into their hands to some extent. As long as they do the right thing, I don't think most lovers of heroes and comic books seem to mind ;)

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Jaded Wolf
YEah which is why I just kind of blinked at the TV screen and went, "huh?". What ground does Lana have to based this on

That's the same way I felt!

They were just showing us more evidence that Lana doesn't really know Clark at all.

Just as he's made up his own idea in his head about who she really is, she's apparently done the same thing with him.


Originally posted by BadToad
As for the excessive force used on this show...and that doesn't just apply to Clark...I'm not going to hold that against any character. From the first season, the show has used that over-the-top, cartoonish sort of effect, and much more often then not, people come out of it unscathed, or with a little, bitty bruise over one eyebrow. Sure, we could see Clark carefully tapping people on the head to knock them out, but I think TPTB would also see that as far less visually entertaining, and they're right. People like their action and violence, and a gentile Clark is likely not going to cut it for most of the folks at home.

On the subject of Clark crossing the moral line, I think he has. But I think the difference, for me, is that its not a cold, calculated move from Clark. And it is almost always followed with some genuine reflection, or usually motivated by some extreme emotional event. Which isn't to suggest its right, only that it puts his behavior in context, and shows us someone that does seem to struggle with the moral line.

I think the real difference with Lana in this situation is the precise planning and cold execution, and the fact that this has been going for months. It suggests a whole other mindset then we've ever seen from Clark. He's lashed out violently in moments of extreme upset and despair. But a prolonged campaign of carefully planned vengeance? That I haven't seen from him.

Again, the 30' throws are a show thing, and that sort of unrealistic violence is evident all over the show. I don't see it as a Clark thing. YMMV.

EXACTLY!!!

Excellent post!! couldn't have said it better myself! :)

[All about Clark]

Originally posted by Khyla
They were just showing us more evidence that Lana doesn't really know Clark at all.

I took it that from a human perspective that it wasn't possible to save everyone without crossing some moral line.

The point about not knowing Clark I see some amount of truth to that. She hasn't watched him struggle to save everyone, hasn't seen him battle both physically and emotionally. In this, I think Chloe is only the person who knows what Clark has been through and really knows him. For Clark to tell Lana about everything he's been through in such a second hand way, isn't to know what it was really like to have actually been there and dealt with stuff.

[Mello Penelo]

Originally posted by BadToad
Huh??!! Are you talking about Clark here? He most certainly has NOT killed one person per episode.

How can you say he doesn't? Falling by their own hand. Bah. Clark killed Titan, for example. If Knox hadn't been immortal, he would have died. And Clark didn't care. Way back to the pilot. Clark killed the electric kid. When he super-tosses? A lot of people die.

He kills CONSTANTLY. That's why Smallville's Clark is terrible. If he were the real Clark, the REAL Clark from the comics, we wouldn't be having this discussion because he'd never kill anyone.

[BadToad]

How can you say he doesn't? Falling by their own hand. Bah. Clark killed Titan, for example. If Knox hadn't been immortal, he would have died. And Clark didn't care. Way back to the pilot. Clark killed the electric kid. When he super-tosses? A lot of people die.

Electric kid didn't die. In fact, he even asks Clark "where am I?" after they have their encounter. And No, when he super tosses, people don't die. In fact, they've shown numerous examples of people very much alive after supertosses, including Clark himself when he was supertossed by Eric. If there isn't a body, or someone saying "so-and-so is dead", then there ain't a death.

There wasn't anyway to deal with Titan other then facing him and fighting him to the death. What was Clark supposed to do, try reasoning with him? And even than, Titan fell on his own spike.

There was no intent to kill Knox, but he ended up hitting a fuse box.

I won't argue with you that the show definitely plays around on this point a little too much. But from the horses mouth, Gough, the idea that they are going for is that Clark doesn't try and kill anyone. He did say that it was a greyer area with the phantoms from the Phantom Zone. Thats the guy that runs the show, and he's telling you what they are trying to convey. Now, you may think they suck at the execution, and thats a fair point. But it doesn't change the intent.


He kills CONSTANTLY.

No, he really doesn't. Not IMO.


That's why Smallville's Clark is terrible.

I like him. If I didn't like him, I wouldn't be here. He's not perfect, he can be aggravating, I wish he was further along in some areas, I think he's got bad taste in girlfriends, and so on. But overall, I like him.

The show plays fast and loose with a lot of things, and this is one of them. But I do believe their intent is not that Clark is going out and killing people intentionally. And, IMO, that comes across more often then not. Though there are a few instances I wish they hadn't skirted the line quite so closely on.


If he were the real Clark, the REAL Clark from the comics, we wouldn't be having this discussion because he'd never kill anyone.

Well then, good thing there are those comic books out there for the folks that prefer that version :)

[All about Clark]

BadToad is right. You see alot of these guys getting handcuffed and taken to jail after Clark tossed them.

Clark has only one time when he intended to kill and that's Titan. The only time he thought he killed by accident, he didn't die.

The only other death I can think of was in Gone, when metallic guy was hit by Lois electricity and Clark's heat vision at the same time and no one could know how that would turn out and it wasn't Clark by himself that did that.

No one else has died. Wes shut himself down so as not to be used.

[CDLBLUE]

Much of it predicated on the concept of the morality of power and it's uses, Clark and Lex are the dichotomy of the concept, one uses it for the general good, the other for personal gain, one is selfless in it's excution and the other selfish, one will find his way to almost perfect virtue, and the other will go to the dark side, the story of Smallville is how they reached their preordained destinations, and the tragedy of Smallville is not the existence of a Superhero, but in this alternated universe, the necessity of one.

[DarkChilde]

Clark did state that he "intentionally" killed Titan.

As for morally wrong, using his abilities to win football games.

When the first Sheriff was killed, didn't he use his powers in the Roadhouse bar on one of the patrons.

But most of the time when he does something questionable, it is usually due to emotional distress.

[Mello Penelo]

Sheriff Ethan didn't die. He went to prison for attempted murder.

[Serynarpc]

Once. He bashed Chloe's doctor a bit more than necessary, but he turned out to be Immortal, so its all good.

As far as Lana using her footstool to get back on her high horse, I was hoping for a bit of Red K to magically appear so he could shove her hypocritical size 0 butt out of the barn window.

Lana had Clark's powers for 3.3 seconds and she was abusing her powers to get into Clark's pants (she's been whining that she hasn't been getting any) and then she went after Lex.

Its not weakness for Clark to show restraint in dealing with Lex. Its human nature not to go whack on a four year old with a Louisville Slugger, which equals out to Clark and Lex in a physical confrontation.

'Mortal' showed us a taste of how Clark would deal with Lex if he wasn't burdened with responsibility from being so much stronger than Lex. With his powers, all of the Kents caution of how he could accidentally hurt someone raised him to be very gentle with humans in close contact.

Heck, you need variations of Kryptionite to get him to lose it to an amusing degree. So no, Clark hasn't crossed the Grey line.

That would be Lana hopping back and forth over it like a little child's game of of Hopscotch.

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
I recall a certain conversation last week where Clark tells Lex how he "hated that he had to kill so save lex", or something along those lines.

;) I'm with you on this one, 'Kryptonian-Ronin'. All you others have reminded us of some 'accidental' incidences of suspect. :D However, in the eipsode "Cure", Clark actually admits to Lex, when Lex woke up in the hospital, that he hated that he had to 'Kill' someone to save his life...And that was 'Before' Clark knew that Dr. Knox 'couldn't' be killed. Even though Dr. Knox wasn't killed, clearly Clark thought that he'd killed him. If you get to watch it again, Notice Clark's expression after he throws Dr. Knox into that circuit box (maybe?) and the electricity arced. I think this incident might really qualify. Truthfully though, in Clark's defense, I believed that he was acting defensively to protect Lex from being killed.


Originally posted by Khyla
That's the same way I felt!

They were just showing us more evidence that Lana doesn't really know Clark at all.

Just as he's made up his own idea in his head about who she really is, she's apparently done the same thing with him.



EXACTLY!!!

Excellent post!! couldn't have said it better myself! :)

:D Ditto!!

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Serynarpc
...
Heck, you need variations of Kryptionite to get him to lose it to an amusing degree. So no, Clark hasn't crossed the Grey line.

That would be Lana hopping back and forth over it like a little child's game of of Hopscotch.

Love how you put it :)

[DarkChilde]

Originally posted by Mello Penelo
Sheriff Ethan didn't die. He went to prison for attempted murder.

That's right it has been a while, but it was the episode where Jonathon was framed for murder.

[HalJordan4184]

Originally posted by Imzadia
Truthfully though, in Clark's defense, I believed that he was acting defensively to protect Lex from being killed.

Calrk can not claim that. It would never hold up in a court of law, nor does it hold up morally. Clark can move at speeds virtually unfathomable to humans. Clark is invulnerable, save Kryptonite being there, he has strength thousands of times that of a human being, he can shoot fire from his eyes, and hear a pin drop from orbit. He can not claim self defense or defense of another, in killing a normal human being. There is no reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm, if Clark is even remotely near what's happening.

[anisette]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184

There have been so many instances of the bad guy falling on their own sword, while Clark watches it's not even funny. For the character they are trying to portray, that's over the moral line. No one dies on Clark Kent's watch if he can save them. That includes suicides, and indirectly killing yourself if you are the bad guy. However, CLark, the man who can run to honduras in two seconds, can't take any time to stop someone from running themselves through with a stake, falling off buildings, or any of the number of other ways bad guys have bitten the dust.


That's like telling Spiderman in the first movie to have saved the Green Goblin when the weapon was flying straight towards him. Clark, in all those instances, was trying to save himself. Even though he's extremely fast, there would have been no way for him to save those people.

For example: the tina greer death. Tina was coming towards him trying to kill him. He dodges out of the way and Tina impales herself onto the stake. Clark had his back to the stake. There was no way he could have known it was there, and by the time he realized it was there, Tina had already impaled herself on it.

While I agree with you about the Metropolis part, I disagree with you here. Clark always saves someone if it's in his power to do so. But sometimes, he is too late and you can't blame that on him.

I personally think there have been a few times when Clark has broken the moral code. The one that stands out in my mind is when he went back in time to save Lana at the cost of someone else's life, fully knowing it would take someone else's life. I also believe that in Pariah, and in Phantom with Tim, Lionel, and Lex, if there had been no interference, I believe Clark would have crossed the moral code. But the difference for me is that Clark has felt guilty for doing it, whereas, I don't see that guilt coming from Lana. I think if she had the chance to do it again, she would.


Originally posted by BadToad
Electric kid didn't die. In fact, he even asks Clark "where am I?" after they have their encounter. And No, when he super tosses, people don't die. In fact, they've shown numerous examples of people very much alive after supertosses, including Clark himself when he was supertossed by Eric. If there isn't a body, or someone saying "so-and-so is dead", then there ain't a death.

There wasn't anyway to deal with Titan other then facing him and fighting him to the death. What was Clark supposed to do, try reasoning with him? And even than, Titan fell on his own spike.

There was no intent to kill Knox, but he ended up hitting a fuse box.

I won't argue with you that the show definitely plays around on this point a little too much. But from the horses mouth, Gough, the idea that they are going for is that Clark doesn't try and kill anyone. He did say that it was a greyer area with the phantoms from the Phantom Zone. Thats the guy that runs the show, and he's telling you what they are trying to convey. Now, you may think they suck at the execution, and thats a fair point. But it doesn't change the intent.



No, he really doesn't. Not IMO.



I like him. If I didn't like him, I wouldn't be here. He's not perfect, he can be aggravating, I wish he was further along in some areas, I think he's got bad taste in girlfriends, and so on. But overall, I like him.

The show plays fast and loose with a lot of things, and this is one of them. But I do believe their intent is not that Clark is going out and killing people intentionally. And, IMO, that comes across more often then not. Though there are a few instances I wish they hadn't skirted the line quite so closely on.



Well then, good thing there are those comic books out there for the folks that prefer that version :)

Excellent post. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[HalJordan4184]

Originally posted by anisette
That's like telling Spiderman in the first movie to have saved the Green Goblin when the weapon was flying straight towards him. Clark, in all those instances, was trying to save himself. Even though he's extremely fast, there would have been no way for him to save those people.

For example: the tina greer death. Tina was coming towards him trying to kill him. He dodges out of the way and Tina impales herself onto the stake. Clark had his back to the stake. There was no way he could have known it was there, and by the time he realized it was there, Tina had already impaled herself on it.

While I agree with you about the Metropolis part, I disagree with you here. Clark always saves someone if it's in his power to do so. But sometimes, he is too late and you can't blame that on him.

I personally think there have been a few times when Clark has broken the moral code. The one that stands out in my mind is when he went back in time to save Lana at the cost of someone else's life, fully knowing it would take someone else's life. I also believe that in Pariah, and in Phantom with Tim, Lionel, and Lex, if there had been no interference, I believe Clark would have crossed the moral code. But the difference for me is that Clark has felt guilty for doing it, whereas, I don't see that guilt coming from Lana. I think if she had the chance to do it again, she would.

Actually, expecting Clark to, is not like expecting Spidey too. Spidey isn't Clark Kent, and isn't Superman. Spider-Man doesn't possess the powers, either in speed or strength, to stop things like the Green Goblin. If he could have saved him, would he? Probably. However, Spider-Man'
s speed and strength are nowhere near Clark's, and trying to save the GG, would likely have gotten spidey seriously injured or killed. If we took Clark and put him in the Green Goblin situation, he has every chance to save him. While that Glider was moving fast, for Clark, it would have been virtually standing still. There are anyone of a number of options he could use to save him.

So let's use an in show example, like Tina Greer. Tine Greer was going to hit Clark with a cappacino machine. Invulnerable, super strong Clark. Would it have hurt him? Being that it was in season two, maybe. Would it have killed him or caused any lasting harm? Definately no. What did he do instead? Superspeed out of the way, and then watch, from his supersped up perspective, as Tina Greer slowly impaled herself on a broken two by four. Why couldn't Clark save her? Really, there isn't an answer there, and even tptb have said, he watches the bad guy fall on their own sword. He's letting them do it, which is just as against Clark Kent's moral code, as murder.

And exactly what guilt does Clark show? He says he feels guilty, however, he never does anything about that. When the same situations come up, he still handles them the same way. So how exactly is he fixing things?

[Khyla]

Originally posted by CDLBLUE
Much of it predicated on the concept of the morality of power and it's uses, Clark and Lex are the dichotomy of the concept, one uses it for the general good, the other for personal gain, one is selfless in it's excution and the other selfish, one will find his way to almost perfect virtue, and the other will go to the dark side, the story of Smallville is how they reached their preordained destinations, and the tragedy of Smallville is not the existence of a Superhero, but in this alternated universe, the necessity of one.
Excellent post. Couldn't agree more! :)



Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Calrk can not claim that. It would never hold up in a court of law, nor does it hold up morally. Clark can move at speeds virtually unfathomable to humans. Clark is invulnerable, save Kryptonite being there, he has strength thousands of times that of a human being, he can shoot fire from his eyes, and hear a pin drop from orbit. He can not claim self defense or defense of another, in killing a normal human being. There is no reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm, if Clark is even remotely near what's happening.

what it comes down to is what the writers have been trying to convey to us, and IMO they shout to all of us how Lana sees him in the wrong light, and that their Clark never really has "crossed the moral line".

When Lana said, "i'm not going to apologize for going to extremes to protect the person that i love", and Clark told her she sounds like Lex, to which Lana replied, "I sound like you !", Clark looked hurt, and disappointed that she would think that of him. It only proved to him further that she really doesn't know him at all, nor does she have faith in his best intentions. When she said, "You can't tell me you haven't crossed the moral line to save someone", it appeared to really bother him that that's how she looked at him, rather than see his ultimate reverence for life, his desire to try and see good in everyone, and to protect those he cares for the most only through defensive measures when necessary, never offensive ones.

It made clear that her idea, her image, of him is not of some noble, caring person, who worries that "no matter how many people he saves, he can't solve the world's problems" (--S6.Ep9:SUBTERRANEAN)
Lana's accusations are a drastic contrast to Chloe's praise, "I don't know anyone who does more for this world than you."

while Chloe tries to dispel his guilt and his berating of himself, Lana plants those little seeds that make him question his own motives and noble ideals and ladens him with even more undeserved guilt.

[Atomic girl]

Khyla, loved your use of the dialogue to make your point here, it's what I would have done. Clark did explain it best, and I love the way you threw in Chloe's words too.

[HalJordan4184]

And that had exactly what to do with my post. I wasn't addressing what Lana said, I was addressing the fact that Clark has indeed crossed the moral line, just not in the way Lana did. Lana was going to outright kill, and yes, we all know she was being bad. However, Clark standing idly by, while people three feet from him are dying, and just going oh well, they were bad, is just as morally questionable. Especially given the character tptb have been trying to portray is Clark Kent.

[All about Clark]

We do get you don't agree with TPTB's portrayal of Clark. However, I do hold weight to the fact that he is still young and still has been learning his powers, especially in the first 3 years. I think that the issue might lie in if I save them, then how is that I will stop them. I know in later years he'll have the suit and just fly them off to the authorities. But Clark doesn't have the suit or the back-up of the authorities or the flight. I think that when Clark has these things it will be easier to wisk them off to jail instead of letting them fall on their own sword. And really another issue is out there, that Clark faces meteor freaks and people with powers, just how can the authorities control these type of individuals. Sometimes even their capabilities are less than what is needed. It's not like Clark had the option of getting Titan to the cops, because let's face it, no jail would hold him and that has been true for some of the freaks. I mean Tina Greer could be anyone, could escape anytime and did so by killing someone. So in the case of Tina Greer, I think falling on her own sword was probably the only way to protect future people. And in the example of Lex, who has been a regular person without abilities, Clark has protected Lex from harm even when he could have died from his own sword, so to speak.

[HalJordan4184]

Clark can knock them out, like he has coutless other people in the past. That's the problem. Take Curtis Knox, who for all intents and purposes was a normal human. IF it came down to stopping someone who was essentially good, but for some reason was doing bad, like Pete in Rush, he just taps them on the head and knocks them out. However, if it's a random freak, or guest bad guy, he tosses them fifty feet, and in Knox's case, electrocutes him. It's the blatant disregard for their life, simply because they are the bad guy, that's crossing over the moral line.

[All about Clark]

Being that the tossed never get hurt I have to go with that being similar to the knock to the head and TPTB only do that for theatrics. But you had brought up Tina Greer in particular and it was shown that she had super-strength and the old head knocking or toss wasn't going to work as a means of stopping her. As for Curtis Knox, I agree it was very careless (an accident) that it seemed he didn't pay attention to where he was tossing, but then again I think that's just another one of those things TPTB used to let Clark know that Curtis was immortal; yes, you and I would have prefered a better way to get there. And I do agree that TPTB do take some liberties, but I don't think there intent is to have him crossing a moral line, because usually the bad guy never gets hurt. But I do stick to the fact the force is most likely a way for Clark to stop the meteor infected that have krytonite in them that makes them strong, and in that case they do always cause their own demise. But I will always feel that Titan was different and that Clark went there with the intention to kill and that can't be overlooked, but as I have said before that Clark holds human life over alien life, and to the extent we've even seen self-loathe because of his alien nature.

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Atomic girl
Khyla, loved your use of the dialogue to make your point here, it's what I would have done. Clark did explain it best, and I love the way you threw in Chloe's words too.

Thank you! :)



Originally posted by All about Clark
Being that the tossed never get hurt I have to go with that being similar to the knock to the head and TPTB only do that for theatrics. But you had brought up Tina Greer in particular and it was shown that she had super-strength and the old head knocking or toss wasn't going to work as a means of stopping her. As for Curtis Knox, I agree it was very careless (an accident) that it seemed he didn't pay attention to where he was tossing, but then again I think that's just another one of those things TPTB used to let Clark know that Curtis was immortal; yes, you and I would have prefered a better way to get there. And I do agree that TPTB do take some liberties, but I don't think there intent is to have him crossing a moral line, because usually the bad guy never gets hurt. But I do stick to the fact the force is most likely a way for Clark to stop the meteor infected that have krytonite in them that makes them strong, and in that case they do always cause their own demise. But I will always feel that Titan was different and that Clark went there with the intention to kill and that can't be overlooked, but as I have said before that Clark holds human life over alien life, and to the extent we've even seen self-loathe because of his alien nature.

Excellent post!

i agree completely!:)

[dont_like_soap]

I don't know. What are Clark Kent's morals? on this show? Not much.

[RJLCyberPunk]

Truth be told Clark always walks a very fine line trying not to hurt people, animals or break things.But that does not mean he has never thought of it at one point or another. Remember that after he learned that Lana was seemingly dead he was just about ready to kill Lex. In the comics is pretty much the same thing. Superman for all intended purposes lives in a world of cardboard. Only in Justice League Unlimited do we see him breaking loose on a villain Darkseid...

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by Khyla

[QUOTE]What it comes down to is what the writers have been trying to convey to us, and IMO they shout to all of us how Lana sees him in the wrong light, and that their Clark never really has "crossed the moral line".


When Lana said, "i'm not going to apologize for going to extremes to protect the person that i love", and Clark told her she sounds like Lex, to which Lana replied, "I sound like you !", Clark looked hurt, and disappointed that she would think that of him. It only proved to him further that she really doesn't know him at all, nor does she have faith in his best intentions.


While Chloe tries to dispel his guilt and his berating of himself, Lana plants those little seeds that make him question his own motives and noble ideals and ladens him with even more undeserved guilt [/B]

:eek: WOW! Kyla, IMO, All of your comments & observations about the underlying layers of disparity in the relationships between Clark & Lana then between Clark & Chloe are agreed to be, indeed, excellent. :cool: Especially in that last statement about 'planting' guilt. Lex has that affect on Clark. Maybe it's a device to point to their days as friends when Clark used to go to Lex for advice. Whatever Lex says, from observation or attitude, if Clark is harboring some feelings he's not spoken of, Lex manages to get to him whether they're 'real' or not. It is ALSO apparent that there is a Similarity in Lana's & Lex's attitude toward Clark in that respect, even when Lex doesn't know the details of Clark's true 'Secret'. Their attitudes are very close. It seems that TPTB Are pointing out to us that it's Noticeable by all who are around Lana that she's taken on many of Lex's attitudes, except she's the only one who doesn't see it. ;)

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Imzadia


:eek: WOW! Kyla, IMO, All of your comments & observations about the underlying layers of disparity in the relationships between Clark & Lana then between Clark & Chloe are agreed to be, indeed, excellent. :cool: Especially in that last statement about 'planting' guilt. Lex has that affect on Clark. Maybe it's a device to point to their days as friends when Clark used to go to Lex for advice. Whatever Lex says, from observation or attitude, if Clark is harboring some feelings he's not spoken of, Lex manages to get to him whether they're 'real' or not. It is ALSO apparent that there is a Similarity in Lana's & Lex's attitude toward Clark in that respect, even when Lex doesn't know the details of Clark's true 'Secret'. Their attitudes are very close. It seems that TPTB Are pointing out to us that it's Noticeable by all who are around Lana that she's taken on many of Lex's attitudes, except she's the only one who doesn't see it. ;) [/B]

thank you ! :) and I agree, though the writers will probably never bring back Lexana they will show us a Lana who can not be with Clark either, because she is straddling the two of them, (that sounds kinky :lol: ) and always will be.

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by Khyla
thank you ! :) and I agree, though the writers will probably never bring back Lexana they will show us a Lana who can not be with Clark either, because she is straddling the two of them, (that sounds kinky :lol: ) and always will be.

:D Ditto! Khyla...I completely agree with you. The newly formed relationship between Clark & Lana infused with 'even newer, darker developments' within Lana's character gives me much satisfaction. Lana has never shared All the 'detail' of what she endured at the Luthor's hands. She found herself in a dangerous place. IMO, it was directly due to Choices she'd made concerning her relationship with Lex. She admitted as much to Clark at the end of "Wrath".

However, I feel that Lex has been manipulating Lana and subtly 'grooming' and seducing her since their Partnership with the Talon. He started out trying to 'help' Clark win her affections, then he decided he wanted her for himself. He patiently waited for her to become old enough to accept his advances. She was too young and inexperienced, especially compared to Lex, to see what was happening. Clark is guilty of allowing it to happen since he didn't know how else to handle their relationship. That's what 'I' saw, and I believe that what TPTB wanted us to see.

I'm one of those who said "Let's wait and see what TPTB 'Do' with their storyline". I had seen the change in Lana last year and wondered 'just how' they were going to insert a "happily ever after" relationship following the events of last season. I think they're leading us down a Reasonable path with them.

Clark is going to have to willingly re-evaluate his previous preconceptions of Lana as the innocent young girl-next-door. TPTB do show us that she would 'like' to do good, but can't help herself when it comes to that underlying 'darkness' that makes her lash out defensively to ensure her own survival. I feel that Lex really does know her better than Clark at this point. It's sad, but if Smallville's creators are going to give us anything similar to the established mythos, it's a path that 'Had' to be taken. We're going on the emotional journey with them. I'm sure it's not what many people thought it was going to be like this season. So far, I'm Liking it. ;)

Er...Khyla? I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your holiday Clark avi. Is that Tom's 'real' body, or is it a manip.? Because, I haven't seen that much of his beautiful body since his Phy. Ed. swim class when he was back in high school. :p :D I've never seen him that 'buff' either. Whoever that is, He's magnificent! :eek:

[Mello Penelo]

Originally posted by RJLCyberPunk
Only in Justice League Unlimited do we see him breaking loose on a villain Darkseid...

Only because he couldn't put a dent in Darkseid. Superman had nothing left, yet Darkseid still kept going.

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Imzadia

However, I feel that Lex has been manipulating Lana and subtly 'grooming' and seducing her since their Partnership with the Talon. ... She was too young and inexperienced, especially compared to Lex, to see what was happening.
I agree with the first part of your statement and i would add Lex has been manipulating everyone. It's his nature, but I would say that he saw it in Lana's nature too, that she was someone who could easily become like himself, if she wasn't already. They seemed to already share some similar attributes and she knew, and even anticipated and was excited by Lex's attention. There is a poster here who has an entire thread dedicated to this, and I myself pointed out several examples that also show this as an ongoing thing since Season 1. Even her disappointment that Lex wasn't going to "make her his queen" when he was back to normal, was so obvious at the end of S4 "Onyx"


... but can't help herself when it comes to that underlying 'darkness' that makes her lash out defensively to ensure her own survival. ...

yes that is so "lana". As I posted before , Lana's such a "personal security hog".
Throughout the series AlMIles have presented us with a Lana whose "love" is and always has been dependent on which guy she perceived to be able to keep her safer and protect her better, while putting her on a pedestal; and whoever appears to have the most prestige and/or power.
Lex had the power and means to provide answers and solve the problem of keeping the world, and her, safe from an extraterrestrial attack, while providing her with safety and comfort.

She obviously had renewed interest in Clark only when she witnessed the powers he had.:\)

She's one who can easily cross the moral line to insure her "security", and expects that someone who truly loves her would do the same.



Er...Khyla? I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your holiday Clark avi. Is that Tom's 'real' body, or is it a manip.? Because, I haven't seen that much of his beautiful body since his Phy. Ed. swim class when he was back in high school. :p :D I've never seen him that 'buff' either. Whoever that is, He's magnificent! :eek: [/B]

:( It's a manip*. BUT we can pretend it's him! :D Glad you like it! :) I think i made a large version for my K-site Xmas wishes here last year.

(* some random underwear model. :lol: My hubby refused to sport those hot jingle-bell boxers :p, so i just had to manip them onto Clark. :D :lol: )

[HalJordan4184]

Originally posted by RJLCyberPunk
Truth be told Clark always walks a very fine line trying not to hurt people, animals or break things.But that does not mean he has never thought of it at one point or another. Remember that after he learned that Lana was seemingly dead he was just about ready to kill Lex. In the comics is pretty much the same thing. Superman for all intended purposes lives in a world of cardboard. Only in Justice League Unlimited do we see him breaking loose on a villain Darkseid...

There is a difference in what is happening in Smallville and what is happening in those comic situations. Clark purposely pulls his punches in the comics, so as not to hurt anyone. If he's unsure of an enemies strength, he guages it the only way he knows how, by working his way up the force meter. He starts off with as little force as possible, and as the situation, and other forces warrant it, increases it. Now if he fights someone like Darkseid, who can take everything he has, sure, he can haul off and belt him, but for most of the villains he faces he can't.

Smallville's Clark just hauls off and belts them, regardless of who they are, or what powers they may have.

Also, Clark in the comics, when presented with situations where someone he loves seemingly dies, doesn't jump into killer mode. The best possible example is where Manchester Black kills Lois in front of Superman, and laughs at him. Black has been trying to prove to Superman, and the world, that Superman is not the hero everyone thinks he is. That he's not committed to his own ideals. So he makes Clark think that he arrives just in time to watch Lois die. Clark is obviously devastated, and crying. For a brief moment, he thinks about how easily he could kill Black, but he puts that out of his head. He looks him dead in the eyes, and essentially says, you're going to jail, and I'm going to take you there in a minute, after he takes care of Lois. Black tries to goad him into violence, and Superman just ends up telling him, that he can run, hide or do whatever, but he will find him, and arrest him, and watch him be tried in a court of law. To do any less, and violate who he is, and what he stands for, would be an affront to Lois' memory.

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
There is a difference in what is happening in Smallville and what is happening in those comic situations. Clark purposely pulls his punches in the comics, so as not to hurt anyone. If he's unsure of an enemies strength, he guages it the only way he knows how, by working his way up the force meter. He starts off with as little force as possible, and as the situation, and other forces warrant it, increases it. Now if he fights someone like Darkseid, who can take everything he has, sure, he can haul off and belt him, but for most of the villains he faces he can't.

Smallville's Clark just hauls off and belts them, regardless of who they are, or what powers they may have.

Also, Clark in the comics, when presented with situations where someone he loves seemingly dies, doesn't jump into killer mode. The best possible example is where Manchester Black kills Lois in front of Superman, and laughs at him. Black has been trying to prove to Superman, and the world, that Superman is not the hero everyone thinks he is. That he's not committed to his own ideals. So he makes Clark think that he arrives just in time to watch Lois die. Clark is obviously devastated, and crying. For a brief moment, he thinks about how easily he could kill Black, but he puts that out of his head. He looks him dead in the eyes, and essentially says, you're going to jail, and I'm going to take you there in a minute, after he takes care of Lois. Black tries to goad him into violence, and Superman just ends up telling him, that he can run, hide or do whatever, but he will find him, and arrest him, and watch him be tried in a court of law. To do any less, and violate who he is, and what he stands for, would be an affront to Lois' memory.

:rolleyes: 'HalJordan1484', you make an accurate comparison between the Clark Kent of 'Smallville' and the 'Superman' of the Comics. However, you should also note that there IS a difference BECAUSE of the difference in the Times these experiences happen for Clark during the course of his life. In the Comics, Clark is a more matured and experienced man/superhero. In Smallville, Clark is basically inexperienced in the world and not yet at the level of emotional maturity that would afford him such wisdom.

The Smallville Clark hasn't Started, let alone Completed, his Special Training at the FOS, so he's still ignorant of what his true capabilities are. In Smallville, he's still trying to learn from his many mistakes. He displays lapses in judgement, but that's common with most young adults. It can be dangerous because he's so powerful, but he DOES Question himself. That alone makes him somewhat insecure, not about what he believes is the difference between right and wrong, but about Who he is and What he May be capable of.

It takes the many years Clark trained and studied when he was in the FOS combined with a wider range of experiences here on earth And offworld to manifest the Clark Kent/Superman you've read about in the Comics. That kind of fortitude, conviction, and purity in his character requires deep and unrelenting self-confidence that's Not accompanied by arrogance of any kind. That's the person Clark becomes, but it took TIME for him to reach that place of integrity and comfortably 'Live' there...so to speak, "In his own skin."

You seem to be quite knowlegeable about the Superman in the Comics, but you should watch Smallville with a different set of Scales and remember that part of the Clark Kent who arrived here as a toddler or baby had to 'grow up' and learn the behaviors that make him great. They were NOT Automatic. Don't be so harsh in your Judgement, because you're watching the "Superhero in the Making", the Journey, Not the Finished product. :\

[Khyla]

Originally posted by Imzadia
:rolleyes: 'HalJordan1484', you make an accurate comparison between the Clark Kent of 'Smallville' and the 'Superman' of the Comics. However, you should also note that there IS a difference BECAUSE of the difference in the Times these experiences happen for Clark during the course of his life. In the Comics, Clark is a more matured and experienced man/superhero. In Smallville, Clark is basically inexperienced in the world and not yet at the level of emotional maturity that would afford him such wisdom.

The Smallville Clark hasn't Started, let alone Completed, his Special Training at the FOS, so he's still ignorant of what his true capabilities are. In Smallville, he's still trying to learn from his many mistakes. He displays lapses in judgement, but that's common with most young adults. It can be dangerous because he's so powerful, but he DOES Question himself. That alone makes him somewhat insecure, not about what he believes is the difference between right and wrong, but about Who he is and What he May be capable of.

It takes the many years Clark trained and studied when he was in the FOS combined with a wider range of experiences here on earth And offworld to manifest the Clark Kent/Superman you've read about in the Comics. That kind of fortitude, conviction, and purity in his character requires deep and unrelenting self-confidence that's Not accompanied by arrogance of any kind. That's the person Clark becomes, but it took TIME for him to reach that place of integrity and comfortably 'Live' there...so to speak, "In his own skin."

You seem to be quite knowlegeable about the Superman in the Comics, but you should watch Smallville with a different set of Scales and remember that part of the Clark Kent who arrived here as a toddler or baby had to 'grow up' and learn the behaviors that make him great. They were NOT Automatic. Don't be so harsh in your Judgement, because you're watching the "Superhero in the Making", the Journey, Not the Finished product. :\

I couldn't agree more!

Excellent post!! :)

[litew8]

What about the time Clark almost killed that gang member for stealing his father's watch? That was crossing the line. But as he was about to (much like every other time), something or someone (in this episode, his father's voice) reminds him that he is a good person.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANYWAY, I think everyone in this thread is forgeting that Clark has to deal with his learned HUMAN EMOTIONS. They are similar to Kryptonian powers, they have to be learned and tamed. Jor-El just told Clark about how human emotions can hurt him (S7-BLUE). The opposite is also true, they can hurt others. But in all, he HAS to cross the line, or come VERY VERY close to crossing the moral line - before he realizes WHERE that line actually is.

Lesson learned. Class dismissed.

[HalJordan4184]

Therehas never been outside ofthe reeve films, any kind of training, for Clark to learn how to be human. Superman isn't a representation of some forgotted Kryptonian knowledge. Superman isn't a super kryptonian warrior, who traind for years in any icy palace. Clark literally, just threw on tights one day, and started saving people. No training, no lessons from an alien on what it takes to be human.

Also, Clark should know his own strength, he has to live with it. If he doesn't know it, he's being irresponsible just being around humans.

The Clark of Smallville can never be the Superman of the comics, or even movies. He can't be trained to become it, it has to be something he already was. This Clark, has absolutely zero desire to do anything with himself, that isn't farm produce, and be with Lana. He'll never be Superman, because he doesn't want to. He's essentially being forced into it, and that's sad.

[Shadar]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Therehas never been outside ofthe reeve films, any kind of training, for Clark to learn how to be human. Superman isn't a representation of some forgotted Kryptonian knowledge. Superman isn't a super kryptonian warrior, who traind for years in any icy palace. Clark literally, just threw on tights one day, and started saving people. No training, no lessons from an alien on what it takes to be human.

The Clark of Smallville can never be the Superman of the comics, or even movies. He can't be trained to become it, it has to be something he already was. This Clark, has absolutely zero desire to do anything with himself, that isn't farm produce, and be with Lana. He'll never be Superman, because he doesn't want to. He's essentially being forced into it, and that's sad.

I'm not so sure about that... I've known some people who were idiots at that age, but learned from their mistakes (usually some profound ones) and grew up to be extraordinary adults. The people who know them in their teens would never in a million years have expected the man they became later.

I think Clark still has hope to become Superman, but not on his current course. Something has to deflect him and cause him to rethink everything.

And its not the Kryptonian training thing. I agree... that has no analog in the Superman mythos that I've ever seen. In fact, I think his heroism will come from NOT submitting to that brainwashing. Instead, he'll learn to be Superman by hanging on to his humanity and learning from his mistakes.

But... I have NO confidence the writers are attached to that idea. No evidence of it in recent shows either. But, it can still be done with the right writing, at least IMHO.

But unless there is a season 8, there isn't time. (Assuming we even get any new episodes written for season 7).

Shadar

[HalJordan4184]

Even with a season eight there would be no time. Clark Kent is not every other person. He's supposed to be the cut above, not the repentant, reformed, former trouble maker. He was the good kid. Clark Kent, has always just been Clark Kent. Yes, it's not how everyone else spent their life, and grew up. It's how Clark Kent grew up, and how he's spent his whole life. Even the ordinary life he had in Smallville, wasn't "ordinary". Being superstrong, doesn't mean he gets to make mistakes and do things on the level he has.

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by Khyla
I couldn't agree more!

Excellent post!! :)

Thank you, Khyla. :)

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by litew8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ANYWAY, I think everyone in this thread is forgeting that Clark has to deal with his learned HUMAN EMOTIONS. They are similar to Kryptonian powers, they have to be learned and tamed.

But in all, he HAS to cross the line, or come VERY VERY close to crossing the moral line - before he realizes WHERE that line actually is.

Lesson learned. Class dismissed.

:) I agree with much of what you say, 'litew8'. However, I think that there are Some of us here who Definitely have Not forgotten about Clark's 'Learned' HUMAN EMOTIONS. I know that as humans, we All have emotions, but we are taught from infancy how to display them in a socially acceptable way and in the appropriate places.

Maybe "I" just choose to believe this, but I feel it was the same way for Clark, too. He didn't arrive here already knowing everything about himself, the world, the 'Cosmos', or anything more than what he was able to observe. All children have to be nurtured and taught good behavior. If human babies, or small children, as Kal-El was when he arrived on Earth, are left alone without supervision and manage to survive, they become 'ferol' children and are apt to behave as a wild animal operating and navigating their environment with basic instincts. As he grew and developed more of his abilities, he would've become easy to locate from the trail of destruction he would've left in his wake wherever he went. He would've become a Menace to the world as a teenager or younger.

Clark was, thankfully, found, and rescued from wandering around naked until he stumbled upon someone, or some animal, who would've influenced him in a number of different 'odd' ways. The Kents made him a part of their family and showered him with nurturing love, care, and patience. He learned his basic value system, moral code, and standard of integrity from the examples he observed from his adoptive parents, his closest human teachers. THEY taught him how to 'Tame' his instinctive emotions as he was growing up, just as we all learn self-control as we mature. It's a 'learning system' most of us are familiar with that's based on 'Trust'. He learned a sense of 'Fairness' as well as an Understanding of what's Right and what's Wrong. The Kents did that for Clark in Every Incarnation of Superman/Clark Kent's story.

[Imzadia]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
Therehas never been outside ofthe reeve films, any kind of training, for Clark to learn how to be human. Superman isn't a representation of some forgotted Kryptonian knowledge. Superman isn't a super kryptonian warrior, who traind for years in any icy palace. Clark literally, just threw on tights one day, and started saving people. No training, no lessons from an alien on what it takes to be human.

Also, Clark should know his own strength, he has to live with it. If he doesn't know it, he's being irresponsible just being around humans.

*** Every strength or ability has to be Tested and Measured to know its capacity, even Superman's. Clark can only gauge his limitations if he's given a situation to prove it. *** "I"

The Clark of Smallville can never be the Superman of the comics, or even movies. He can't be trained to become it, it has to be something he already was. This Clark, has absolutely zero desire to do anything with himself, that isn't farm produce, and be with Lana. He'll never be Superman, because he doesn't want to. He's essentially being forced into it, and that's sad.

:rolleyes: HalJordan4184, even if you're a 'Super Moderator', your thought processes sound like you're 12. Maybe you are, and I don't really mean any disrespect, but your 'seeming' understanding of the Superman/Clark Kent story sounds like a great MIS-understanding on your part. I disagree with anyone in this discussion who believes that we should disregard everything that's happened in Clark's story outside of the comics. DC Comics gave those who produced the TV series and the movies Permission to create their versions of his story.

If we ignore those things that were changed or added, except when those things created a contradiction, then we're saying that it's not Really a story about Superman. So, are all the other stories about 'Another' Superman? So then, how many are there, and how many can or will there be when his story no longer holds any fascination for the masses who adore him now? There Has to be Immutable circumstances that would bind every re-telling of his story to each other to make it recognizable as a Superman story.

The stories that are told in the comics are Gospel then? I don't see how they could be with so many variations. I do think that everytime something 'new' and 'good' was added and accepted, Superman's story was given more depth and enrichment. A more detailed background story made Clark a multi-dimensional character I could 'care' about, rather than the two-dimensional story of a super-powered being who was sent to Earth, found by an old farmer and his wife and raised in humble surroundings.

If, as you said, "Clark literally, just threw on some tights one day, and started saving people. No training, no lessons from an alien on what it takes to be human.", is All that happened to urge him to become Superman, then That's a Dull & Silly story, suitable only to inspire small children. He Never trained to learn how to be human. Other than his super abilities, which are physical attributes, being human was All Clark knew how to be.

I remember when I first learned anything about Superman in the 50s, I knew that he was Astronomically powerful, his demeanor stoic and aloof, and I had little interest in him other than being fascinated about him being from another planet. My understanding of him when I was a child was that his dedication to helping and saving humanity was a 'duty' he chose to perform in appreciation of his adoptive planet home. He was cartoonish,
but by the time I'd reached my teens, I thought that he was too much of a 'goody-two-shoes' to be a character who held my interest. He certainly didn't seem to need anyone but was sufficient unto himself, eventhough he 'claimed' to love Lois Lane from afar. Less information is NOT MORE when it comes to telling the story of a remarkable being such as Superman.

True, Superman ISN'T a Kryptonian warrior, but he IS a Kryptonian on Earth under the influence of our yellow sun which makes him 'super'. On his birth planet, he would've been like every other inhabitant, born without super abilities. In the "Reeve" movies, at the age of 18, Clark went to the FOS to learn about his heritage, who he was and what he was capable of doing with his abilities. He received an Education far beyond anything available to him here on Earth. He learned 'Disciplines' from various worlds, absorbed knowledge that spanned the 28 Known galaxies, according to Kryptonian libraries, and it took him 12 years. I wish it had taken a shorter period of time, but I think they made it that way to suggest the vast scope of what his 'Training' entailed. IMHO, I thought that was a very good addition.

Making Clark emotionally vulnerable and having the struggles from within like the rest of us, made him 'relatable'. I agree with 'Shadar' as well, about Clark's character being salvagable since he's still so young. Our best and most difficult teacher in life is Experience. Clark should learn from his experiences and
his mistakes, because they usually make a person stronger. Those who've struggled the most and endured and overcome great obstacles usually develop great character and become the best leaders who set the best examples as role models later in their lives.

Yes, 'litew8', Clark does HAVE to get to 'the line', morally, to know where his limits are. Clark wouldn't be interesting as a character if he was the perpetually 'Good' little boy, 'good All the time' person, just an 'oddity'. He could never counsel the person who's having a struggle choosing between right and wrong if he'd never experienced it himself, 'HalJordan4184'.

I don't know whether the storytellers, writers, will be able to get Clark to the door of his destiny within the timeframe of Smallville due to the WGA strike. They have often jumped some high hurdles to skip ahead in some other stories, for example "One Tree Hill" with their "Fast Forward" approach to continuing that story.

They would really have to close and finish All loose and open-ended story arcs. Really, I'd just like to have them finish telling their story with it making some sense that keeps Clark's character intact. :\

[litew8]

Originally posted by Imzadia
:) I agree with much of what you say, 'litew8'. However, I think that there are Some of us here who Definitely have Not forgotten about Clark's 'Learned' HUMAN EMOTIONS. I know that as humans, we All have emotions, but we are taught from infancy how to display them in a socially acceptable way and in the appropriate places.

Maybe "I" just choose to believe this, but I feel it was the same way for Clark, too. He didn't arrive here already knowing everything about himself, the world, the 'Cosmos', or anything more than what he was able to observe. All children have to be nurtured and taught good behavior. If human babies, or small children, as Kal-El was when he arrived on Earth, are left alone without supervision and manage to survive, they become 'ferol' children and are apt to behave as a wild animal operating and navigating their environment with basic instincts. As he grew and developed more of his abilities, he would've become easy to locate from the trail of destruction he would've left in his wake wherever he went. He would've become a Menace to the world as a teenager or younger.

Clark was, thankfully, found, and rescued from wandering around naked until he stumbled upon someone, or some animal, who would've influenced him in a number of different 'odd' ways. The Kents made him a part of their family and showered him with nurturing love, care, and patience. He learned his basic value system, moral code, and standard of integrity from the examples he observed from his adoptive parents, his closest human teachers. THEY taught him how to 'Tame' his instinctive emotions as he was growing up, just as we all learn self-control as we mature. It's a 'learning system' most of us are familiar with that's based on 'Trust'. He learned a sense of 'Fairness' as well as an Understanding of what's Right and what's Wrong. The Kents did that for Clark in Every Incarnation of Superman/Clark Kent's story. ;) Fair enough. While I agree with what you have said above, I can still rebut. We 'human' know, LOVE or LUST is a very powerful emotion. Not something that can be taught or tamed by our parents, friends or foes. It is something that each person has to experience independently. Something each person, independently, has to come to grips with on their own accord.

[HalJordan4184]

Yes, you got me, I'm a 12 year old. :rolleyes:

I'm not understanding the character as a twelve year old, anymore than you reading him in the fifties, has somehow given you a profound psychological insight into the character, that no one can ever touch.

I will definately agree, that when something new AND GOOD was added, it made the character better. However, the key there, is something GOOD. Making Clark a bank robbing drug addict, makes him better how? Seems to me that makes him worse than the average person. Is he a better Superman, because he doesn't do that again then? Seems to me when presented with the guy that never robbed a bank, versus the guy who did, I'd be a little more apt to trust the one who didn't commit a major felony, but hey, that's just me.

In making Clark "more human", they've completely turned him into a hypocritical jerk. He's nowhere close to anything he's supposed to be. He's not on the path to change, because so far, there hasn't been a reason to. Anything bad that happens, has been swept under the rug, or the consequences were just outright ignored by Clark. He's being shoved into his destiny, since he won't willingly head that way, and is resisting every step. The day he accepts it, wholeheartedly, will be the day they lightswitch him. He's not on a path, he's stuck on one spot, and one day, they will teleport him to the end of the supposed path, and comment about how the journey was great.

As far as salvaging him, it's too late. He's in his twenties, and he's still where he was at fifteen, behind even in some areas. Experience is a great teacher, if you actually care to learn from it. Clark keeps making the same mistakes over again. First time I can grant him, maybe even the second time, but the fact we're seven seasons in, and he still doesn't listen, still thinks he belongs on a farm in Smallville, and is still deluding himself into thinking he's a nothing, and doesn't matter, is too much for even suspension of disbelief.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

We have heard over and over how this is a new version of the Superman story, a 21st century version and as such, they have made Clark a "prototypical" 21st century young man, which is insulting to any young men of the 21st century.

He is not and never will be the Clark of the comics or the movies, this is prety clear, unless they pull a "light switch
move which is always a possibility.

This version of Clark will have to surpass much more than any other Clark has, he has already shown himself to be morally "questionable" and has shown and stated his 'reluctence" to be more than a simple farm boy with special powers, he has put the fate of the world in the back burner and has caused by his ill judgement and lack of common sense, horrible things to happen.

Perhaps that is the point, perhaps by bringing Clark down to the depths the writers are hoping to make his journey to the "heavens" more substancial ?

Who knows.

[All about Clark]

Imzadia, your post #84 was fantastic. I had never read the comics, but HalJordan does make him seem incredibly boring and one dimensional. How dreadful it would be to watch his Superman's growing years. It is wonderful that SV has made Clark more human. And I do want my Superman to be fully tested and have learned many lessons before putting on the suit. I want him to be prepared to deal with all the pitfalls of human emotion and how it relates to himself as well as to others. I want to see Clark's confidence grow from a teen who was scared to be a government science experiment to a man who is not afraid to risk himself for Earth's protection.

I do think TPTB have made a great show but need to step it up as lately they've been dragging their feet. I still have hope for this Clark that he will finally grow up and quit making so many mistakes, even though mistakes are a natural part of learning.

Superman is a very powerful being and I would expect his youthful mistakes to cause great distress. I do not blame him for that as long as he learns from his mistakes. And I wouldn't want Clark to accept everything AI Jor-el has told him. But he's past some grand hurdles, with Lana accepting him and Clark knowing his parents were good despite what the AI has done to him. I expect an big improvement in Clark now that he's past some of these hurdles.

[HalJordan4184]

See, I'm not in this thread to show the 3-dimensional nature of the comics Clark. If anything, this show makes a mockery of 3-d character development, as Clark is a characiture. You want to find out how 3-dimensional comic's Clark is, read the comics. It's not my intention, or my job, to make a detailed outline, and post a crap load of facts.

However, it's extremely funny, that up and down character development, and dawson's creek-esque situations, are what constitute 3-d character development now adays.

[All about Clark]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
See, I'm not in this thread to show the 3-dimensional nature of the comics Clark.

Thank you.

[HalJordan4184]

This thread was about clark crossing the moral line.

I addressed it, and somehow, each conversation I have on this topic, seems to be people telling me I'm just a comic purist, and then they relate how they don't read the comics, but that the characterizations in them are just so childish and one dimensional, that I must be wrong, and 12.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
This thread was about clark crossing the moral line.

I addressed it, and somehow, each conversation I have on this topic, seems to be people telling me I'm just a comic purist, and then they relate how they don't read the comics, but that the characterizations in them are just so childish and one dimensional, that I must be wrong, and 12.

Not everybody, Hal. I don't think you could have been more correct in anything you've said about Clark in this thread. You made all the same points I would have, more eloquently, and then some. And I am far from a comics purist, nor am I 12.

[biggumt]

when i first read the title of this thread, the first thing i said to myself was "oh yeah, you bet your ass he has."

[Last Son of Vern]

It says it right there in the theme song: "I've made this whole world shine for you." Who gave him the right to do that to the world? Not very considerate of those on the other hemisphere trying to sleep, now was it? :p

Everyone's got their own beliefs of what a moral line is, but certainly Clark's own beliefs on the matter qualify him to make such a statement on his own behalf.

My own beliefs teach that concepts like "good" and "evil" tend to be subjective extremes, but that we each have a responsibility to consider the consequences of our own choices and actions to ourselves and everyone else. Some would call this blurring the line, but it's actually more like recognizing the potentially infinite lasernet of lines, and the responsibility for a moral gymnast to navigate them all. Sometimes, simply having a beneficial intention isn't enough; being free to take moral responsibility for your own decisions is a huge responsibility because there is no guarantee of the consequences being obvious enough to think through. And what goes around will come around.

Obvious example: Clark in episode 100 didn't know that turning back time for Lana wouldn't lead to another death, did he? Yes, questions of guilt can really become that unfair. But guilt, or flogging oneself as Clark did in past seasons, is not the point. We learn, we accept our mistakes, we grow and we make better decisions, wisely considering every angle and every best interest, as Clark is doing in his story.