I think the key (with regard to the differences in our opinions) lies in this sentence.
I’ll (hopefully) get to that later.
■ from Idol section;
Why did Lois only mention the sex aspects of her dream to the therapist?
■ and the next episode, Pandora;
“I thought I could take down Zod BY MY OWN.” “You know I’m the BEST CHANCE for getting back that ring.” All this conversation occurred right after Lois heard how Zod wanted Clark to join the *flying aliens* army and how Tess also tried to persuade Clark to do so. Why is that if he were just a Kansas farmer boy or a basement reporter? hmm, Lois? On top of that, all this unmistakable clues, right after she almost nailed him in Idol!
I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.
Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!
Yeah, she pulled the pieces together pretty fast in that episode, didn’t she? That’s why I never complained about the lack of screen time for my favorite characters - even for Clark. In this show, I believe the screen time is a curse, not a blessing. Offscreenville seems like such a wonderful place.
As usual, you (general you) don’t have to agree with me about anything but here I’ll try to explain you where I’m coming from.
IMO, the big part of what makes Lois (or any other character) worse or better is the writing - from characterization to plot. When I look back – say, 10 years from now - at my Smallville DVD box sets on my book shelf, do I look at them and recall “Oh geez, I remember how those SV writers were making their characters so ambiguous!” or will I be thinking “Oh my, SV’s characters were so ambiguous!”. Me? Definitely the latter and I’m pretty sure that I won’t even remember the names of SV’s show runners & writers by then. All what I’ll remember is how these characters were depicted in this series. I elaborate further in 9 paragraphs later.
Actually, no. I am criticizing both. Lois is a brilliant reporter in one episode and then she is clueless in the next one. It hurts the character and her reporting credibility and in the end --- the character as a whole, imo.
In your opinion because no matter how these things are the faults of the writers, it does make the character look bad in my opinion.
What if I say there is? We both agreed that all of us interpret each scene of the show differently. You keep using the word “choose”, but I’m not deliberately trying to choose anything. I get what I get from what I see. That’s all. And if I didn’t get it, ….. is it my fault?
And Lois didn't do anything in Conspiracy to show that she did know that Zod was the CEO of RAO, either. In fact, the way she said “But still, something doesn’t quite add up.” translates me as she didn’t. That’s what I got from the show.
ETA: I re-watch the scene and now I know more clearly why I got the impression Lois didn’t know. She said,“That’s the thing about the hero. No matter how brightly you shine the light on them, they always want to stay in the shadows!” Zod wasn’t exactly staying the shadow as the CEO of RAO – a hero figure (for people in Metropolis) who built the “Towers of Tomorrow”. JMO
No one here is bashing her for the sake of bashing. In fact, most of the folks who post comments in this thread are Lois’s fan. Please don’t take our critique to heart but instead, maybe you can search for the truth in it? I think we all have them – in both positive and negative opinions.
If Lois’s fans are complaining that she is not consistently depicted as a good reporter, maybe there's something not working? I would think so. YMMV
I'm genuinely curious, though. What about you? Why giving Lois “the benefit of the doubt” would do any good for the character in general? I did read the rest of your paragraph but I still don’t understand how the character can take a benefit from it. If you say this is how you roll because you enjoy the show much more in this way, then I totally understand. But what about Lois, the character? Will she be benefited from it in a long run?
Why do we have to “deal” with the ambiguity, though? Wouldn’t it be much better if we – who are the fans of Lois at least – can all agree how she is a brilliant reporter?
Again. This is where we are fundamentally different. For me, it’s the same thing. And your mileage clearly varies.
In my previous post, I gave you an example of Chuck Austen as to how he was writing Lois horribly. Yes, the fans were criticizing the writer but what he wrote became “canon” in the Mythos (unless until retconned), no matter how we’d like to erase it from our memory – just like AoS is now canon in the SV series and so is Henry Jimmy Olsen. It’s all part of the Superman canon right now and will be remembered as such for generation after generation. These incarnations will be recognized for their action & traits of the characters, and NOT the writers who are responsible behind it. You know what I mean?
You can advocate Lois all you want for the ambiguity, but maybe you’ll realize one day that it will come back to bite the character’s butt as much as (though I’d say “more than”) the writers. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than happy for the character. After all, you advocate Lois and I criticize Lois for the same reason. We both care for the character.
Oh, I do that constantly but directly to the DC. I want them to strengthen on the so-called “restrictions” since I feel like there’re actually none (especially for Clark). Also that’s why I keep posting my reviews in the episode discussion forum nowadays. I feel like that’s where they look at when figuring out what worked and what didn’t in each episode. I mean, IF they look at it. Just my hunch.
So, are you saying you’re happy about the way this Lois has been written in this season? No gripe at all? If your answer is yes, then more power to you. Me, on the other hand, I believe Lois can do much better than that. We can agree to disagree.
.
I’ll (hopefully) get to that later.
In what sense? Do you have any examples?
■ from Idol section;
Why did Lois only mention the sex aspects of her dream to the therapist?
■ and the next episode, Pandora;
“I thought I could take down Zod BY MY OWN.” “You know I’m the BEST CHANCE for getting back that ring.” All this conversation occurred right after Lois heard how Zod wanted Clark to join the *flying aliens* army and how Tess also tried to persuade Clark to do so. Why is that if he were just a Kansas farmer boy or a basement reporter? hmm, Lois? On top of that, all this unmistakable clues, right after she almost nailed him in Idol!
I saw many folks being not happy about how Clark still kept lying to Lois even in this AU future but to me, Clark keeping his secret is more believable than Lois not having a light bulb moment - just like Jimmy did in Identity.
Speaking of Jimmy, when he found out Clark’s secret in Doomsday, he said, “That whole 'you're here one second and then you're not'? You took a bullet and the next day you were fine. I mean it's like you're some kind of super ... guy." This, of course, was also constantly witnessed by Lois as well, even more so since she has been working side by side with Clark every day. In this show, Lois looks much less of an investigative reporter than Jimmy was. And he wasn’t even a reporter!
Personally, I thought Lois was shown to possess Pulitzer Prize worthy skills in Absolute Justice.
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.
IMO, the big part of what makes Lois (or any other character) worse or better is the writing - from characterization to plot. When I look back – say, 10 years from now - at my Smallville DVD box sets on my book shelf, do I look at them and recall “Oh geez, I remember how those SV writers were making their characters so ambiguous!” or will I be thinking “Oh my, SV’s characters were so ambiguous!”. Me? Definitely the latter and I’m pretty sure that I won’t even remember the names of SV’s show runners & writers by then. All what I’ll remember is how these characters were depicted in this series. I elaborate further in 9 paragraphs later.
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.
ETA: I re-watch the scene and now I know more clearly why I got the impression Lois didn’t know. She said,“That’s the thing about the hero. No matter how brightly you shine the light on them, they always want to stay in the shadows!” Zod wasn’t exactly staying the shadow as the CEO of RAO – a hero figure (for people in Metropolis) who built the “Towers of Tomorrow”. JMO
Feel free to condemn Lois without all the evidence, if that's what you're saying you want to do for her own "good."
If Lois’s fans are complaining that she is not consistently depicted as a good reporter, maybe there's something not working? I would think so. YMMV
I'm genuinely curious, though. What about you? Why giving Lois “the benefit of the doubt” would do any good for the character in general? I did read the rest of your paragraph but I still don’t understand how the character can take a benefit from it. If you say this is how you roll because you enjoy the show much more in this way, then I totally understand. But what about Lois, the character? Will she be benefited from it in a long run?
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.
Again you're talking about writers getting the benefit of the doubt while I was talking about giving LOIS the benefit of the doubt.
In my previous post, I gave you an example of Chuck Austen as to how he was writing Lois horribly. Yes, the fans were criticizing the writer but what he wrote became “canon” in the Mythos (unless until retconned), no matter how we’d like to erase it from our memory – just like AoS is now canon in the SV series and so is Henry Jimmy Olsen. It’s all part of the Superman canon right now and will be remembered as such for generation after generation. These incarnations will be recognized for their action & traits of the characters, and NOT the writers who are responsible behind it. You know what I mean?
You can advocate Lois all you want for the ambiguity, but maybe you’ll realize one day that it will come back to bite the character’s butt as much as (though I’d say “more than”) the writers. If I’m wrong, then I’m more than happy for the character. After all, you advocate Lois and I criticize Lois for the same reason. We both care for the character.
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.
All I said was that I respect Lois in such a way that I won't condemn HER without all the evidence.
.
Comment