This Lois must not be a very good investigative journalist...

[utguardian]

The thing about ambiguity is that in the absence of definitive evidence, it is impossible to make a definitive judgment. Right now, all we can say is that we don't know if Lois has made the connection or not. So when you speak of things making sense, or logic, one would think that logically Lois would have known about Zod just like everybody else. Logic tells us that Lois Lane is the kind of person who knows these things based on past episodes like Stiletto when she knew specific details about the crime bosses in Metropolis. Logic also tells us that Lois was skeptical of Zod's cover and went so far as to look into him further. So what makes sense, and is logical, is to take all of this into account and give Lois the benefit of the doubt that she did know that Zod was the CEO of RAO.

Logic would also dictate that Zod being the CEO of a company in the headlines currently as RAO is, particularly after the fall of the towers, would need to be addressed onscreen during the course of this "is he an agent or isn't he" discussion. Any failure to do so is a detriment to the narrative and to the character of Lois Lane, because it implies a lack of fundamental knowledge on her part to everyone who isn't willing to write half the story themselves (and I am not). If I have to guess and rationalize about what characters think or know about important issues (and Zod's dual role as CEO and purported FBI agent is a big issue) then the writers have failed at their job. For Lois not to mention it, when it's such a big part of Zod's public persona that you yourself say she must have knowledge of, is a big gaffe on their part.

A simple line during her exchange with Clark where she could have acknowledged how weird it is that a CEO of a major company would also be an undercover FBI agent would have been sufficient. These are the kinds of sins of omission they've been making all season (see Jimmy death talk happening offscreen for a lesser example). It's lazy and there's no excuse for it when, as I've said, it would have taken a handful of words to solve the problem. It would've taken nothing away from the scene as they had written it, only added the continuity fix.

On a final note, ambiguity served no purpose here. There was no justifiable reason for them NOT to explain that Lois knows of his CEO role, but plenty of reasons for them to do the opposite. I contend they have serious editorial issues on the show. The Alia story proved this already but things like this reinforce it. The viewers should not be expected to write parts of the story for them, it's as simple as that in my view.

[ginevrakent]

Logic would also dictate that Zod being the CEO of a company in the headlines currently as RAO is, particularly after the fall of the towers, would need to be addressed onscreen during the course of this "is he an agent or isn't he" discussion.

Of course it would have been great if it had been mentioned during this scene. Where I disagree with you is taking the logical leap that because it wasn't mentioned, then Lois must not be cognizant of the fact that Zod is the CEO of RAO.

Any failure to do so is a detriment to the narrative and to the character of Lois Lane, because it implies a lack of fundamental knowledge on her part to everyone who isn't willing to write half the story themselves (and I am not).

How does Lois not saying anything about Zod being the CEO of RAO prove that she does not know that he is? It's simply ambiguous, which is poor writing, but there's nothing to suggest that Lois is as ignorant as you are implying.

If I have to guess and rationalize about what characters think or know about important issues (and Zod's dual role as CEO and purported FBI agent is a big issue) then the writers have failed at their job.

I don't believe you have to guess or rationalize any more about this issue than you would have to guess or rationalize about whether or not Clark made sure no one was hurt when he destroyed the solar towers in Persuasion. Personally, I trust that Clark would take such precautions so I have no doubt that he did. Similarly, based on my conception of Lois Lane as a character, I have no doubt that if she were writing an expose on the solar towers, she would know who the CEO of the company responsible for their construction.

A simple line during her exchange with Clark where she could have acknowledged how weird it is that a CEO of a major company would also be an undercover FBI agent would have been sufficient.

Lois admitted that everything she knew about Zod didn't add up. I would say that she is aware of the fact that something about Zod is off.

On a final note, ambiguity served no purpose here. There was no justifiable reason for them NOT to explain that Lois knows of his CEO role, but plenty of reasons for them to do the opposite.

I don't believe the goal was to be purposefully ambiguous, but I don't believe the presence of ambiguity undermines Lois as a character because we simply do not have enough information to determine the amount of information she currently has on Zod.

The Alia story proved this already but things like this reinforce it.

While there are dangling plot threads regarding Alia, are you absolutely sure that there will be no follow up on those issues by the end of the season? I think the only thing that has yet to be explained is how she was able to maintain her powers after the sun was turned yellow. Perhaps during the Pandora timeline Clark saved her with his blood as he did with Zod in Conspiracy? I guess we'll see.

The viewers should not be expected to write parts of the story for them, it's as simple as that in my view.

You're not being asked to write parts of the story for yourself. You're being asked not to label Lois as ignorant based on ambiguous evidence. I'm not happy the writing was so ambiguous, but I don't like the idea of jumping to conclusions either. The bottom line is: we don't know what Lois knows.

[metropolisfan]

It seems that Lois is only shown to be a tenacious investigative reporter when the plot calls for it (e.g. Combat or Sneeze).

Otherwise the writers seem to make her unbelievably uncurious when it comes to Clark and his sceret, imo.

[Iconic Couples Fan]

Clark did tell Lois Zod was "deep undercover." It implies she knew more about him than that he was friends with Clark. She was only trying to find leads after Vala disappeared. And Zod wasn't around and she considers him a "hero." That and being Clark's friend kind of gives him the benefit of the doubt. She probably would have asked Clark more but they had their agree to keep secrets conversation. She knew something was up with RAO in Persuasion and finding out Zod worked there would make sense if he's "deep undercover" for the FBI in Metropolis. JMO

[ginevrakent]

It seems that Lois is only shown to be a tenacious investigative reporter when the plot calls for it (e.g. Combat or Sneeze).

In what way was Lois not shown to be tenacious in Conspiracy? If we give her the benefit of the doubt and accept that Lois has known Zod was the CEO of RAO at least as recently as Persuasion, then she took that knowledge and tried to integrate it into the new knowledge she received in Conspiracy (i.e. that Zod was supposedly an undercover FBI agent). Given that Lois contacted the FBI to find out more about Zod and questioned Clark's honesty when he tried to explain some of the facts not adding up, I'd say that Lois was shown to be skeptical, curious, and tenacious with regards to the whole issue. The story isn't over yet either.

Otherwise the writers seem to make her unbelievably uncurious when it comes to Clark and his sceret, imo.

Actually, Lois is curious about Clark. She's indicated on numerous occasions that she's knows he's keeping a secret (e.g. Oracle, deleted scene in Hypnotic, Rabid, Idol, and Persuasion). She notices when he does things that are strange, but she's chosen to not press the issue out of respect for Clark and apparently because she views some "mystery" as good for the "romance." So I disagree about Lois' lack of curiosity.

[utguardian]

Of course it would have been great if it had been mentioned during this scene. Where I disagree with you is taking the logical leap that because it wasn't mentioned, then Lois must not be cognizant of the fact that Zod is the CEO of RAO.

Because it is important as he is a public figure and she's not acting in any way like he is and that's bizarre. Let's assume for a second that Zod's alias was that he was a big movie star or the mayor of Metropolis. Now let's assume the events of Conspiracy unfolded similarly and he saved Lois under the guise of an FBI agent. You don't think it's logical to expect that Lois would have something to say about why the mayor of Metropolis or Brad Pitt was claiming to be an undercover agent? That doesn't strike you as something the audience needs to be clued in on?

How does Lois not saying anything about Zod being the CEO of RAO prove that she does not know that he is? It's simply ambiguous, which is poor writing, but there's nothing to suggest that Lois is as ignorant as you are implying.

Because, again, the information is too important to be omitted from the conversation. It isn't a nuance of Zod's character. He is a prominent public figure overseeing a game-changing techonological advancement that has just been destroyed by terrorists or whatever (see beginning of the episode and the newspaper headline), and now he's suddenly saving the day and claiming to be an FBI agent, which she later proves is not true? You don't think this is odd enough to warrant inclusion in the dialogue and that by not doing so they do a disservice to Lois?

While there are dangling plot threads regarding Alia, are you absolutely sure that there will be no follow up on those issues by the end of the season? I think the only thing that has yet to be explained is how she was able to maintain her powers after the sun was turned yellow. Perhaps during the Pandora timeline Clark saved her with his blood as he did with Zod in Conspiracy? I guess we'll see.

Until I see spoilers or evidence to the contrary, everything points to Alia's story being done. As for the bolded, that's unacceptable to me unless it is explicitly stated onscreen that it happened. That's fanwanking to me. As I said before, I will not write the story for them. If it's something minor, no, I don't need to be told every detail but if it's something glaring, explanations need to be given.

You're not being asked to write parts of the story for yourself. You're being asked not to label Lois as ignorant based on ambiguous evidence. I'm not happy the writing was so ambiguous, but I don't like the idea of jumping to conclusions either. The bottom line is: we don't know what Lois knows.

It seems you're taking this as an affront to Lois Lane, the character, not the writers which is where my criticism lies. Characters, when written by many different writers over the years, are often going to have OOC moments. I don't fault the character (because the character isn't a real person and is subject to the writers' failings) unless the character is being written in a deliberately unlikeable way. I call them on the mistake they made with Lois in this episode just as I call them on the way they wrote Clark in Warrior. It doesn't take away my appreciation for Lois in any way. On the contrary, it's because I respect the character that I don't like seeing her left open to criticisms of being clueless or, as the title of this thread suggests, a bad investigate journalist. When they make these kinds of mistakes it leaves the character open to such attacks. My love for the character, however, will not have me fanwanking on her behalf as I don't see how that does her or myself any good.

[ginevrakent]

Because it is important as he is a public figure and she's not acting in any way like he is and that's bizarre. Let's assume for a second that Zod's alias was that he was a big movie star or the mayor of Metropolis. Now let's assume the events of Conspiracy unfolded similarly and he saved Lois under the guise of an FBI agent. You don't think it's logical to expect that Lois would have something to say about why the mayor of Metropolis or Brad Pitt was claiming to be an undercover agent? That doesn't strike you as something the audience needs to be clued in on?

Nope. She lives in a world where Oliver Queen is a celebrity, yet he is also Green Arrow. Since she's dealt with this kind of thing before, I'm not surprised that she didn't have a more extreme reaction. Nevertheless, she did react. She did look into Zod, and she did treat him suspiciously as was shown in her discussion with Clark at the end of the episode. Why would the audience need to be clued into the fact that Lois knows Zod is the CEO of RAO when they easily could have assumed she knew like everyone else as recently as Persuasion? Do we need Lois to confirm that she knows Jimmy is dead to believe that she realizes this fact? I don't think we do.

Because, again, the information is too important to be omitted from the conversation. It isn't a nuance of Zod's character. He is a prominent public figure overseeing a game-changing techonological advancement that has just been destroyed by terrorists or whatever (see beginning of the episode and the newspaper headline), and now he's suddenly saving the day and claiming to be an FBI agent, which she later proves is not true? You don't think this is odd enough to warrant inclusion in the dialogue and that by not doing so they do a disservice to Lois?

She didn't prove that Zod wasn't an FBI agent, though. Lois proved that there was something that didn't add up about his status as an FBI agent, but she hardly proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. She was suspicious, however. She demonstrated that she recognized an inconsistency with Zod's background, and that's enough proof to me that she wasn't oblivious to what you yourself describe as the obvious fact that Zod is "a prominent figure" known for something other than being an FBI agent. I think to doubt Lois when it comes this matter does a disservice to her, IMO.

Until I see spoilers or evidence to the contrary, everything points to Alia's story being done. As for the bolded, that's unacceptable to me unless it is explicitly stated onscreen that it happened. That's fanwanking to me. As I said before, I will not write the story for them. If it's something minor, no, I don't need to be told every detail but if it's something glaring, explanations need to be given.

I'm just speculating; hence the use of the phrase "I guess." It's all just a guess as we watch the rest of the season unfold. I withhold judgment until all evidence is presented and presume people innocent until proven guilty. It's how I roll.

It seems you're taking this as an affront to Lois Lane, the character, not the writers which is where my criticism lies.

There's really very little difference between the two, IMO.

I call them on the mistake they made with Lois in this episode just as I call them on the way they wrote Clark in Warrior.

I don't see what happened in Conspiracy as a mistake. I can even understand Clark in Warrior to a degree, but that's a discussion for another place and time.

It doesn't take away my appreciation for Lois in any way.

I have difficulty accepting that when you just said this earlier: "Any failure to do so is a detriment to the narrative and to the character of Lois Lane, because it implies a lack of fundamental knowledge on her part." If you are adamant that her character was harmed, then are you suggesting you have unconditional love and acceptance of Lois as a character, and therefore her being shown to have a "lack of fundamental knowledge" is just a forgivable mistake on her part?

On the contrary, it's because I respect the character that I don't like seeing her left open to criticisms of being clueless or, as the title of this thread suggests, a bad investigate journalist.

You're the one criticizing her for something that was left ambiguous. You could choose to give her the benefit of the doubt or you could choose not to do so. I understand and respect your right to interpret and react in whatever way makes the most sense to you. I respect Lois enough that I'm not going to condemn her without all the evidence.

When they make these kinds of mistakes it leaves the character open to such attacks. My love for the character, however, will not have me fanwanking on her behalf as I don't see how that does her or myself any good.

You are fanwanking, though. You are fanwanking that she didn't know, and I'm fanwanking that she did. I don't see how what you're doing does Lois any good.

[bigblueplanet]

I'm with utguardian on this one. Some great points you brought up in your posts and I’m in a complete agreement here.

I’m not happy how reporter Lois was written from the “Idol” onward as I keep expressing my frustrations elsewhere. She is supposed to be a very good investigative reporter. I don’t mind the fact that this incarnation is a college dropout as long as they show me that the education doesn’t really matter for her when it comes down to her investigative skills & instincts for unveiling the truth and shows us just how good she can be at the job. But at this point of her journey on the way to becoming a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist one day? It’s just NOT consistently translating on this show IMO.

You're the one criticizing her for something that was left ambiguous. You could choose to give her the benefit of the doubt or you could choose not to do so. I understand and respect your right to interpret and react in whatever way makes the most sense to you. I respect Lois enough that I'm not going to condemn her without all the evidence.

Ouch. So, in your opinion, if we criticize our favorite character - because we think she/he was written badly -, we don’t respect this said character enough? Don’t you think maybe we criticize because of just that as well?
i.e. our love & respect for the character?

I chose not to give her the benefit of the doubt but chose to agree with fellow posters who point out she was written poorly because I WANT her to be written better than this. I don’t see any benefit for the character by giving her “the benefit of the doubt”, I mean, what kind of “good” coming out of it if I do that?

You are fanwanking, though. You are fanwanking that she didn't know, and I'm fanwanking that she did. I don't see how what you're doing does Lois any good.

But of course it goes both ways and here, you wonder the same thing. Well, I can only speak for myself but I’m a firm believer that we can influence (not always but sometimes) the writers and their creative decisions for the better benefit wrt the characters we love.

For example, Superman fans complained how Supes was written wimpy in the “Justice League” season 1 and the show runners listened to us and as a result, the character was written much better in season 2 (in this Superman fan’s eyes and I know many other fans would agree with me, too).

And there’s Chuck Austen debacle - the comic book writer who hates Lois’s character and had been writing the horrible Lana/Clark/Lois triangle arc right before the “Infinite Crisis” (= a perfect timing to ‘reset’ or even 'erase' something). Some of us think that the backlash from the fans saved Clark & Lois marriage in the Mythos. As a result, the “legendary” Clois relationship still continues to date and beyond.

If fans were giving Chuck Austen “the benefit of the doubt” at the time and said/did nothing, perhaps Clois marriage was erased just like what Marvel did to Peter Parker/Mary Jane Watson in "One More Day" and their relationship might’ve become a memory by now. Just food for thought.

I think many fans show their frustration because they care about the show and its characters as much as the fans who choose not to voice them. I’m aware that it’s important that the show is supported by all of us – which I do, by the way, in the best way I could (= $). But I also think it’s equally important to question a creative decision so that the show can improve. In fact, I’ve seen some of the evidences in this very show that someone might’ve been listening to us. Am I hallucinating? Maybe. It’s just a wishful thinking on my part? Probably. Only time can tell. But meanwhile, I just wish you wouldn’t label us (who does latter) as a fan who has less respect for the character than you do.

.

[ginevrakent]

I’m not happy how reporter Lois was written from the “Idol” onward as I keep expressing my frustrations elsewhere. She is supposed to be a very good investigative reporter. I don’t mind the fact that this incarnation is a college dropout as long as they show me that the education doesn’t really matter for her when it comes down to her investigative skills & instincts for unveiling the truth and shows us just how good she can be at the job. But at this point of her journey on the way to becoming a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist one day? It’s just NOT consistently translating on this show IMO.

In what sense? Do you have any examples? Personally, I thought Lois was shown to possess Pulitzer Prize worthy skills in Absolute Justice.

Ouch. So, in your opinion, if we criticize our favorite character - because we think she/he was written badly -, we don’t respect this said character enough? Don’t you think maybe we criticize because of just that as well? i.e. our love & respect for the character?

I just don't see how love and respect for a character translates into doubting her. I can understand criticizing the writing for leaving something ambiguous, but we all choose how to deal with that ambiguity. Therefore, to choose to see the worst in Lois when one could just as easily see the best in her, seems to choose a route that expresses less love and respect for the character. That said, I don't doubt the actual love and respect anyone has for Lois or any character. Rather, I question the logic used to interpret ambiguous writing when it comes to the character.

I chose not to give her the benefit of the doubt but chose to agree with fellow posters who point out she was written poorly because I WANT her to be written better than this. I don’t see any benefit for the character by giving her “the benefit of the doubt”

Right, you're choosing to criticize the writers, and not the character. Therefore, we can complain that there was ambiguity, but not that the ambiguity inherently makes Lois look bad. We, the viewers, decide how we choose to interpret the ambiguity that the writers have mistakenly given us. I'm not giving the writers the benefit of the doubt here, I'm giving Lois the benefit of the doubt. Criticize the writers all you want, and I'll join you, but there's nothing in show canon to support the accusation that Lois does not know that Zod is the CEO of RAO. I'm choosing to believe that she does based on what evidence is out there and until it's proven otherwise. Usually the line between the writing for a character and the character itself is rather blurry, but in a case like this, I don't think it is. Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she didn't know that Zod was the CEO of RAO, therefore she should be innocent until proven guilty. I do agree that the writers have proven themselves guilty of leaving us with this mystery of did Lois know or not know, but since the mystery hasn't been solved yet, I can't say that Lois looks bad.

I mean, what kind of “good” coming out of it if I do that?

Feel free to condemn Lois without all the evidence, if that's what you're saying you want to do for her own "good." I can agree to condemning the writers for leaving things ambiguous, but ambiguity means there is no proof either way. Therefore, I see no good coming out of criticizing LOIS for what the WRITERS have done, because one can still watch the episode and fill in the blanks as one sees fit. I choose to believe that Lois did know that Zod was he CEO of RAO. If anyone wants to fill in the blanks with something that makes Lois look worse, then feel free. As a fan of Lois, I will only criticize HER when SHE is SHOWN to make a mistake with NO AMBIGUITY. Since there is ambiguity, I don't think it makes sense to criticize her.

But of course it goes both ways and here, you wonder the same thing. Well, I can only speak for myself but I’m a firm believer that we can influence (not always but sometimes) the writers and their creative decisions for the better benefit wrt the characters we love.

Sure, so criticize the writing for its ambiguity, and not Lois for making a mistake or being ignorant of something we don't know for sure she is actually ignorant of just yet. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm saying Lois doesn't automatically look worse because of ambiguity, since it's up to the audience to decide how to deal with that ambiguity.

If fans were giving Chuck Austen “the benefit of the doubt” at the time and said/did nothing, perhaps Clois marriage was erased just like what Marvel did to Peter Parker/Mary Jane Watson in "One More Day" and their relationship might’ve become a memory by now. Just food for thought.

Again you're talking about writers getting the benefit of the doubt while I was talking about giving LOIS the benefit of the doubt. Write a letter to the producers in the Spoiler forum telling them to be less ambiguous in their writing in order to effect the change that you seek. That's fine. That's awesome. I'm just saying that due to the ambiguity, it's up to each individual to judge Lois as they see fit.

Only time can tell. But meanwhile, I just wish you wouldn’t label us (who does latter) as a fan who has less respect for the character than you do.

All I said was that I respect Lois in such a way that I won't condemn HER without all the evidence. I wasn't commenting on the amount of love or respect anyone has for Lois, but how one chooses to demonstrate that love and respect. Criticize the writers who write her ambiguously, because they have the power over that characterization. Where we as viewers have power is in how we choose to react to such ambiguity. I choose to criticize the writing for being ambiguous. However, I also choose to believe in Lois. In the rest of my previous post I said, "I understand and respect your right to interpret and react in whatever way makes the most sense to you." This is still true. I was only speaking for myself and what I do.

ETA: As I a writer here myself, I'm afraid I left it unclear as to what exactly I meant. If what I said was interpreted as questioning other fans' respect for Lois, then I offer my sincere apologies for giving that impression.

[hellokitty]

Because it is important as he is a public figure and she's not acting in any way like he is and that's bizarre. Let's assume for a second that Zod's alias was that he was a big movie star or the mayor of Metropolis. Now let's assume the events of Conspiracy unfolded similarly and he saved Lois under the guise of an FBI agent. You don't think it's logical to expect that Lois would have something to say about why the mayor of Metropolis or Brad Pitt was claiming to be an undercover agent? That doesn't strike you as something the audience needs to be clued in on?

Lois did take issue with Zod's identity as an FBI agent, in that last conversation with Clark. As she said in the beginning of the episode, she's got a lot of "pins in the air" that she's juggling at work. So, even though we're not seeing it, b/c that's not the focus of the story right now, it doesn't mean her investigative reporting isn't happening, but at least the characters are alluding to it.

I agree things can be written better, lines could be added here or there. But I took no concern with this particular issue, since Lois was clearly intrigued by Zod, she knew Clark was being less than honest with her about it...but they ended up chalking it all up to professional discretion. Which is fine and well within character, IMO.

And you speak of Zod's position as CEO of RAO as if he's Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, and that RAO is some huge conglomerate. Do you know who or would you ever recognize the CEO of, say, Pepsico? Who's to say that Zod's "company" is in a position, even if just in Metropolis, to make him a "celebrity", recognizable to anyone on the street, etc. Lois should know him through her research, and given all the examples of her past research in past episodes, I don't doubt that she does.

But at this point in the storytelling...I don't see it as being something that important or that needs to be mentioned specifically. One line would help to show us she definitely knows...but it isn't really necessary to make her a believable journalist. Nor in my opinion, does that one detail imply to me that she's a lesser investigative journalist. She's still curious about him, and depending on what plot they want to focus on, we may or may not see more interaction between them to find out more about her curiosity about Zod.

[actaeon]

I can't make heads or tails of her...does she know, or is she being written as clueless regarding all things Clark?

I highly doubt that she is being written as "clueless". When it comes to things Clark, she is no more clueless than every version of Lois Lane.

So Lois didn't recognize Zod as CEO. Didn't bother me... never even occurred to me that she should. She never met Zod in his role as CEO-- if she had, then yes, I'd see a plot hole. Her not knowing can be explained away in a variety of ways, if need be; I really don't even see the need. Lois met Zod once, in the hospital, and he claimed to be a friend of Clark's. Then she's told that this friend is an FBI agent. Don't see how this makes Lois clueless.

clark is a habitual liar

Disagree completely. Clark has a secret to protect. This doesn't make him any more a "habitual liar" than any costumed superhero, or undercover cop, or wartime intelligence agent. That Clark didn't tell all about Oliver makes him a trustworthy friend, IMO. Clark has to juggle contradictory ethical demands; keeping secrets always entails a conflict with honesty. Clark is aware of this, and it is often painfully obvious that this conflict hurts him deeply.

[Athena]

I think the problem is they don't show enough of the investigating at all.

[ginevrakent]

I think the problem is they don't show enough of the investigating at all.

I agree somewhat. However, that's always been the show's way of doing things. Chloe's "magic laptop" comes to mind. In some ways, I'm grateful for not spending too much time showing the nitty gritty in the investigations. If I wanted to watch CSI, I would watch CSI. I don't because I find that kind of show extraordinarily boring and devoid of substance. I used to watch The West Wing and I didn't preoccupy myself with how thoroughly and accurately they were portraying working for President and other aspects of the political process. I approach Smallville the same way. I'm not looking for them to illuminate everything.

[Supsfan]

I agree somewhat. However, that's always been the show's way of doing things. Chloe's "magic laptop" comes to mind. In some ways, I'm grateful for not spending too much time showing the nitty gritty in the investigations. If I wanted to watch CSI, I would watch CSI. I don't because I find that kind of show extraordinarily boring and devoid of substance. I used to watch The West Wing and I didn't preoccupy myself with how thoroughly and accurately they were portraying working for President and other aspects of the political process. I approach Smallville the same way. I'm not looking for them to illuminate everything.

I think one major problem is investing stuff cost $$$$$$$ to produce. Sitting in a room talking and having a magical labtop or some other form of plot exposition giving you answers is much cheaper.

I guess you can also make the arguement if they had them actively go out and investigate it would also be more time consuming filming wise having to go around to a bunch of locations to get those shots. All that being said it's a huge pet peeve of mine on the show in general. I rather they invest money in location shooting then paying one shot actors. The lack of location shooting is probably my biggest complaint about the show since S5(and it got progressively worse each season since then).

[ginevrakent]

The lack of location shooting is probably my biggest complaint about the show since S5(and it got progressively worse each season since then).

I miss the location shots as well. I think we've gotten fewer scenes shot on location, especially the past few seasons, because the show has become more urban. I would imagine it costs a lot more and is more complicated to shoot on location in Vancouver.