Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Least Favorite Clark Pairing

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    This is my least favorite paring out of all them altogether

    Lana/Clark

    Reason #5 - They're constantly questioning their relationship

    This one actually applies a lot more to Clark than to Lana, but Lana did her fair share of questioning, too.

    Clark is often saying things such as his reaction in Lockdown when Martha suggests telling Lana the truth. He doesn't trust her to react well to his secret. I recently re watched the entire series from start to finish with a friend who had never seen the show before, and he's CONSTANTLY saying stuff like this. With one breath he protests that he loves Lana so much, and in the very next sentence he says he's just not sure that being together is right for them. Off the top of my head I can't remember all the examples (I really should have written them down), but there are a LOT, at least three that are practically word-for-word the same statement.

    For example, during Reckoning (before the reset), when Clark tells Chloe about asking Lana to marry him, he insists that he "knows" that she's going to say "they're too young, that there's a reason [he] didn't tell her before, that there's too much at stake," but Chloe is nothing but supportive and happy for him, even knowing how she felt about him at that time. Chloe didn't think those negative thoughts about Clark and Lana's relationship... but Clark did. He voiced them as being Chloe's supposed thoughts, but those thoughts didn't come from Chloe's head. They came from Clark's.

    And that's not the only time, to be sure!


    Lana: We should have come together, Clark. That's what couples do when these things happen, they turn to each other.


    Clark: Why didn't we?


    Lana: I love you. I love you with all of my heart, but I don't know how to talk to you anymore.

    The above excerpt is another interesting thing to touch on. Instead of buckling down and putting their heads together to figure out how to solve the problems in their relationship, they just walk away from each other immediately after that conversation. Rather than making the effort to try to fix their problems, they seem to find it easier to just mention them once, sweep them under the rug, and let them fester there until their relationship is so damaged that they simply have to break up again... and then get back together, promise each other that "this time, it'll be different" and then proceed to make exactly the same mistakes.

    The way they interact with each other is so immature. Sure, they're cute together in a quiet sort of way, but they are obviously unwilling (or perhaps unable, which is worse) to put in the effort that is absolutely necessary to any relationship to make one work. And when they fight? They fight like five-year-old kids on the playground, attacking each other and making conscious efforts to hurt each other emotionally, rather than taking a step back and tackling the actual problem together and working out how to make their relationship stronger.

    Basically, any problem that comes along can put cracks in their relationship, and a big problem can shatter it like glass. That's not how a healthy relationship works- a healthy relationship learns to become stronger under pressure and adapts to the challenges of life, rather than breaking up extremely quickly.

    Reason #3 - Clark never really got Lana (nor did he respect her)

    Clark treated Lana like a five-year-old. I mean, throughout the series, everyone wants to protect Lana (and let's face it, up until about Season 6 she actually needed it), but Lana did not want to be protected.

    If Clark had truly understood her, he would have acknowledged that and stopped acting like she wasn't able to make her own decisions. It's a constant theme throughout the series until Lana's departure at the end of Requiem. Something's going on, Lana finds out about part of it or all of it and tries to help (or accidentally makes it worse, or whatever), and Clark acts like she's made of glass and should just stay out of it. Lana is not a strong woman (at least initially), but she is definitely durable and she's not stupid. Clark treats her like she's a child who doesn't know the stove is hot.

    It shows an incredible lack of respect for her on his part. It's in his nature to protect people, but there's a difference between protecting the people you care for, and making the assumption that they're too fragile to look after themselves and just locking them up in a metaphorical ivory tower. Clark protected Lois and Chloe (for example), but when he hovered too near they gently (or not so gently, on occasion) reminded him that they were big girls who could in fact take responsibility for themselves. No matter how much Lana protested that she didn't need to be protected, however, Clark seemingly refused to view her as someone capable of protecting herself.

    A noticeable example is in the beginning of Requiem, when Clark brings out the (formerly) kryptonite necklace. Lana has made it apparent in the past that she views this necklace as a symbol of the helpless girl she used to be, which is something she hates. She hates that she used to be so weak and dependent. She has spent the last six to eight months literally torturing herself in order to put that weak, dependent girl in the past and become a competent (if incredibly dark) woman. And the very first thing Clark does with the necklace is to put it around her neck... and Lana has this incredibly uncomfortable expression on her face. It's like he's putting a collar on a dog. Except that by that point, Lana wasn't a puppy anymore, she was a wolf, and he was trying to put her right back in her cage. And he was doing that because the girl that he loved was in fact that girl who always needed Clark Kent to save her, not the woman who didn't want to be saved by anybody but herself.

    The way Clark treats her is actually incredibly demeaning to Lana. Sure, for most of the time he knew her she was a very confused young woman who didn't know who she was and so she absorbed the personality of whomever she dated last, but by the time Season 7 rolled around, she was actually starting to find who she was, and he couldn't seem to respect that. She went a little (actually a lot) too far with it in Season 7, but the truth is, she was always dark like that underneath. Her relationship with Lex just brought it to the surface. And because Clark knew, underneath it all, that he couldn't love a girl with that much darkness in her, he refused to treat her as the adult she had become and instead chose to plaster the sunshiny face of the girl he first knew over top of the woman she'd become, and it's insulting to her.

    It also shows in the fact that after Lana puts on the Prometheus suit, Clark's immediate reaction to this is "Oh god, this is horrible, she's gonna go on another crime spree isn't she?" Actually, I think the actual conversation this reaction is flat-out stated in was an unaired scene (that counts as canon, right?), but that general feeling of this is seriously not good runs right through his whole reaction to Super Lana, both aired and unaired. He does not trust her to be responsible when given that kind of power, and if he truly loved her the way he's constantly claiming he does, you'd think he would have enough faith in her to trust her not to immediately go out and start killing people or something.

    Reason #1 - They do not have the same moral code


    This is the biggie. You know how marriages collapse because the two people manage money in very different ways, or couples break up because one of them is pro-life and the other is pro-choice and they can't find a common ground? It's the same principle.

    Lana absolutely believes from the bottom of her heart that the ends justify the means. If she does something wrong (such as steal a car, or a lot of money, or engage in espionage and armed assault, or physically assault no less than three people, or any of the long, long list of morally questionable actions that Lana takes over the course of the series), she feels that it is totally okay as long as her end goal is good. Now, I know we all hated the Star Wars prequels, but you know what Lana's reasoning sounds like? A whole lot like the kind of reasoning that led Anakin to becoming Darth Vader. If you do bad things for good reasons, it doesn't make you a hero. It makes you an anti-hero, and it's very easy for an anti-hero to become a villain if she/he is not careful.

    Clark, in contrast, has a very rigid code of ethics. We know this. If you don't know exactly what Clark Kent's moral code is by now, what the hell show have you been watching? Yes, he is capable of going too far when he's emotional- anyone is- but when he's thinking rationally, he draws a line in the sand and WILL NOT CROSS IT. Lana looks at the line, scuffs out a place with her toe, and slips over it, and justifies that because killing five people would save fifty.

    And why shouldn't she view the world that way? Until Season 7, she suffered absolutely no consequences for any of her actions because Clark and Lex (and earlier, Nell) absorbed all the consequences for her (and even during Season 7, she never suffered any consequences such as jail time for her crimes or anything, she only suffered the consequence of damage being done to her relationship with Clark). Hell, in Phoenix (during S3), she straight up killed a guy and suffered no consequences for it. It could be called self-defense, yeah, but based on most U.S. laws it would probably be considered something called Constructive Manslaughter which would still earn her jail time. Yet after she impales the dude, it's basically never mentioned again. She seems to suffer no remorse for killing a man, and I'm sorry, but that's kind of weird. Even if he was a criminal, even if it was manslaughter and not murder, I would still feel incredibly bad for being the reason a person's life ended.

    From Siren:
    "Every transgression that I have made, you have answered with a hypocritical judgment. No one can live up to your self-righteous standards."

    The point here is that no relationship can survive- and I mean NO relationship, at least of a romantic type- when the two people involved have such a wildly divergent attitudes about morality and personal responsibility. It's one of those absolute fundamentals that just has to be there. You don't have to agree on every little detail, but the gist of it has to be relatively similar. Clark and Lana's moral codes are not relatively similar.

    One thing I know for certain about love is this: you find your soul mate when you find someone who might be very different from you on the surface, but underneath all the top layers, you're the same.

    Clark and Lana are very similar on the surface. They're both fairly reserved people who come from similar backgrounds, both intelligent and with a predilection for melancholy and dwelling on the past. Underneath that, however, in the real sinew and bone of who they are, they're incredibly different people. They're sort of like what would happen if you tried to make a pair of pants, and you made one leg out of denim and the other leg out of lace. Both legs are the same shape and the pants will fit, but you probably don't want to wear them!

    ...And with that rather odd metaphor, I'll conclude this epic-length post and officially rest my case (at least until the next time the YouTube comments section pisses me off and sends me on another rant, anyway).

    Lana and Clark may have loved each other, but love is not enough. Love is the reason that you fight through the hard things. It's the best part of any relationship. But it's not the only thing a relationship needs. A successful relationship also needs trust, respect, friendship, and the willingness to work through obstacles (even obstacles within the relationship itself) as a couple. Clark and Lana had the love, alright, but they did not have ANY of the other elements. They didn't often trust each other, they didn't often respect each other, and despite all their talk of "we're just friends" in the first two seasons, they weren't ever really friends in the way Clark was with the other girls in his life (including the woman he married, who declared him to be her best friend). And when two people find it easier to just give up rather than try to untangle their problems, I wouldn't call that "working through obstacles."

    The Clana should have ended when High School ended in season 4 in the episode Commencement. That should've been the cut off point of the Clana entirely like it should be. They had that in the comics and the animated series version of superman why not have the same on Smallville? the same cut off point? instead of continuing to elongate the Clana into season 8!?!?! Stupid writers.*agitated* Having Lana be with Clark just makes her more annoying, she's too *****y, too whiny, too judgmental, too pushy, too hypocritical, too demanding and too ungrateful and when she's with Clark she brings out the worst in him as a lover and as a partner. She doesn't know when to shut up about the secrets, lies and honesty crap. She doesn't know when to back off and mind her own business and what's worse she doesn't understand that she is the one who is causing most of their problems in their relationship by her drama, neediness and insecurity, not just Clark and his bad decision making. She couldn't make the sacrifices that he needed, she wasn't fated to be his life. We all know that Lois is not Lana. I mean I don't mind the Clana, but I don't hate the Clana because it's not Lexana. I just don't like the Clana because of their elongated endless on again off again emotional roller coaster yo yo ring around, it is really redundant and repetitive I mean how many times do they have to kick the dead horse around? They done enough kicking the dead horse around as it is already, do they need kick it more? I mean honestly? and because I know from a woman's perspective that it is frustrating and tiring for woman to have some one you love not open up to you and always having that feeling of disconnection with a man. I got that from my Men, dating and relationships research and what is it with women and their need to talk about their relationships with men? I mean do they not understand that talking their relationships to death only back fires with a man? If a man is not attracted to a woman, all of her attempts to share a connection, convince him to like her, and to feel and share love will not get her the love she deserves.

    Nothing makes a man act distant faster than a woman pleading and pressuring him for a long term decision through weak or hurt emotional displays. But the worst part of being a convincer is that it can ultimately, after time, begin to kill the interest and attraction a man feels for you.

    The curse of a physically attractive woman


    For women who are physically attractive, in a strange way, being attractive becomes the very thing that holds them back from learning how to create the kind of attraction that goes beyond just how good they look. Men, being the predictable animals they can be, usually respond to what the woman is doing. But here's the tricky part about some men. When a man responds to physical attraction, it can lead women to thinking that they're going about getting close to him in the right way.

    If you want to make the right start, enticing a man through physical attraction, while it works, is the wrong way to try and set a foundation for the future with a man.

    in conclusion: according to my Men, dating and relationships research analysis (stated above) this is what I see with Lana all the time on Smallville with her relationship with Clark.
    Last edited by laurarawlins; 07-22-2015, 04:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      Clois since they had no chemistry too boring and should of became friends.

      Comment

      Working...
      X
      😀
      🥰
      🤢
      😎
      😡
      👍
      👎