Big Problem with Violence Against Women

[DJ Doena]

This week [SPOILER]Lois kicked a guard (who was only doing his job) full assault in the balls[/SPOILER] but that is never really an issue on TV - in- or outside the SV universe.

[ike1973]

Author’s Note: As always, this is just my opinion.

As a general rule of thumb, I believe that people shouldn’t hit each other. I don’t think that men should hit women, women should hit men, women should hit women, or men should hit men. To me, violence is not an answer; it’s an excuse. Violence always escalates. Someone always gets hurt. And in the case of men/women interactions, it’s usually the women who get hurt. So, if you ask me, everyone should just keep their hands to themselves.

Cutting to My Chase: In “Checkmate,” both Clark’s -- a future-Superman’s -- and Oliver’s actions seem to condone the notion that certain women deserve to have violence enacted upon them or threatened against them. This thoroughly undermines the values and mores that I’d expect Clark and Oliver to have as individuals, and to abide by as vigilante heroes.

***

DRAWING THE LINE
Given what Clark and Oliver do for a hero-living, violence is often necessary. And the line between when violence is necessary and when it’s not, is not easily definable. But, all the same, the line is there, and it is critical. Green Arrow, The Blur, and other such vigilantes operate outside of the law. They are accountable only to themselves, and there is no law to which they answer other than their own moralities. So, especially for them, there has to be a clear sense of where the violence should begin and end. And when it comes to them using violence, there has to be clear sense both of when it is and is not called for, and of how much is called for when it is necessary.

Generally, for individuals like Oliver and especially Clark, I would hope that (1) violence is always the last option, and that (2) any violence used would be appropriate for the circumstances.

But, in “Checkmate,” both Clark and Oliver either threatened violence or enacted violence against their perceived adversaries, and they did so under circumstances wherein violence was not needed. Moreover, the violence that they did use was disproportionate for the circumstances.

It’s bad enough that Oliver and Clark unnecessarily answered their adversaries with violence. But it’s all the more disturbing that those adversaries were women.

PAST IS PROLOGUE
“Kandor”: Clark arrives at the Luthor Mansion to confront Tess about the whereabouts of his father. Tess denies any knowledge of Jor-El or aliens. Clark proceeds to lift Tess by the throat. This is a show of force. And arguably, it is a necessary and appropriate show of force. Clark does not choke Tess; she never gags or coughs or struggles for air. And when Clark puts her down, she isn’t red around the neck, gasping for breath, or rubbing her throat. All of that leads me to believe that she is not hurt, and that Clark was careful not to hurt her.

But, after Tess explains that she can track Jor-El for Clark, Clark gets angry, accuses her of using Jor-El as bait, and shoves her toward her desk. This instance of violence is not necessary. In fact, it is almost punitive. Clark shoves her because he is angry with her. She’s already told him that she’ll help him find Jor-El, but he continues to be violent with her, for no reason other than his temper.

“Pandora”: Clark discovers that Tess has kidnapped Lois. He arrives at a LuthorCorp facility, and confronts Tess. Tess begins to explain (lie) about her involvement in Lois’s kidnapping. She approaches Clark, and Clark shoves her aside, knocking her unconscious. Granted, Clark was weakened by the Green-K in the room, so perhaps he did not mean to shove Tess as hard as he did. But that doesn’t excuse the fact that he did it in the first place. That instance of violence was not necessary. Even in his weakened state, he could’ve tried to reason with Tess. But, he didn’t. He used unnecessary violence, and a disproportionate amount of it.

“Persuasion”: Clark, after having admitted to Zod that he sometimes wants to be a killer and wants justice, and after having been “persuaded” to be a killer and to seek justice, goes after Tess, thinking that she killed Jor-El. After having gotten a hold of Tess, Clark takes her into an open, outdoor area, and throws her through the air and onto the ground. He then terrorizes, accuses, and very nearly kills her. As a standalone, this instance of violence could be dismissed as Clark being under an influence that made him not himself. But, this was not the first time that Clark had been unjustifiably violent towards Tess. So, even though Clark may not have been himself, we once again saw him unnecessarily hurting Tess.

"CHECKMATE"
(1) After having discovered each other’s secret identities, Tess and Oliver confront each other in Tess’s bedroom. The music playing in the background of the scene suggests that it’s supposed to be kind of light, and not-so-serious. Moreover, the quips that Tess and Oliver exchange suggest that the scene is not too grave.

But, note Tess’s body-language and dialogue: After Tess makes a remark about Oliver’s “tights,” he begins to deny that they are tights, and moves towards her. Tess then grabs a dagger to ward him off. That movement means that Tess is wary of Oliver, and doesn’t want him near her. It doesn’t really matter whether she thinks he’s capable of actually hurting her. The point is that she doesn’t want him near her at all, which makes sense, seeing as she’s just found out that he’s been lying to her and now knows that he was the one who shot her with an arrow -- an arrow that bruised her, by the way.

Then, Tess and Oliver exchange a few more barbs, which then prompts Tess to throw her dagger at Oliver, who stops it with a book. They then exchange these words:

Oliver: [throwing the book and dagger onto the bed] Are you crazy, Tess? This isn’t a cartoon! You’re gonna hurt somebody.

Tess: That’s the basic idea.

Oliver: [advancing on her] All right, then.

Tess: [holding out a finger and stepping back] Don’t you come near me.

Here, Oliver threatens violence against Tess, who, at the time, isn’t even armed and has already made it clear that she doesn’t want him near her. She’s moving away from him, but he’s advancing on her, with menace in his voice and bearing. Oliver’s threat of violence against Tess was uncalled for. And regardless of the dagger-throw, she didn’t deserve his intent to hurt her.
And what’s worse, in an earlier scene, Oliver-as-Green-Arrow explained to a Checkmate operative the ways in which to properly treat a woman. Apparently, though, that respect towards women doesn’t apply when Oliver views a woman as an enemy.

(2) Clark arrives in Tess’s bedroom, and tells Tess and Oliver to stop. Notably, he fails to notice that Oliver is the one who’s starting, and that Tess is the one who’s trying to get him to stop. Clark then tells Tess that he needs answers. Tess, who’s just discovered Oliver’s secret and is in the middle of an argument with him, tells Clark that she’s not going to tell him anything.

Clark doesn’t try to reason with her, and he doesn’t try to ask her again, or to explain the circumstances to her. Instead, he takes her, against her will, out onto the roof of a building, and holds her out over it, which suggests that he will drop her. Noticeably, Tess is terrified, especially considering her last encounter with Clark in “Persuasion.” She truly believes her life to be in danger, and Clark abuses that fear. He then pulls her back and grabs her shoulders, demanding to know about Checkmate.

Tess explains Checkmate to Clark, just like he wanted. And she swears to him that she never told Amanda Waller about the Kryptonians or about him. To date, Tess has been true to her word when it comes to Clark. She’s never threatened to betray him or his secret. Indeed, many of her actions on his behalf have been misguided, but she’s never proven herself to be anything but loyal to Clark, even when she’s putting herself at risk to do so. But Clark still doesn’t believe her. So, he superspeeds and shoves her into a wall, telling her that he wouldn’t believe her dying breath.

Tess gets teary, and continues to give Clark information, as he holds her against the wall. Eventually, she tells him about “Watchtower,” and the scene ends.

In this instance, absolutely none of Clark’s violence towards Tess is either called for, or proportionate. He doesn’t even know that Checkmate has Chloe. Time isn’t of the essence, and Tess hasn’t continued to refuse him information. But despite that, Clark is physically and verbally violent with her, even going so far as to threaten her life. He is impatient, abusive, and cruel. He assaults her.

(3) After having been subjected to Clark’s violence, Tess shows up at Oliver’s office looking disheveled, pained, and teary-eyed, with her hair messed, and her shoulders slumped. She is the image of a woman who’s just been assaulted. And that’s exactly what she’s just been: assaulted.

Oliver looks up from his desk, and doesn’t even bother to take note of Tess’s appearance, or to wonder what Clark put her through. Instead, he asks her if she’s there for round two, and, soon after, he gets up from his desk and tells her that if she wants a rematch, all she has to do is say so. Here, again, is another threat of violence. Oliver is perfectly willing and is even offering to be violent towards Tess, who just told Oliver that Clark “made [her]” tell him where to find Checkmate’s headquarters. But still, Oliver completely dismisses Tess’s state, and her clear statement that she’s just been forced to do something. Oliver’s disregard suggests that he thinks Tess deserves her current circumstance.

(4) While at Checkmate, Clark confronts Waller, who tells and shows him that she has Chloe. Waller then tells Clark that she wants his loyalty to Checkmate. In response, Clark advances on Waller, seemingly intending to be violent with her, which is why Waller tells him, “No. Anything happens to me, and bye-bye blondie.” Clark then stops in his tracks. Here again, Clark is threatening violence against someone. Indeed, one could argue that violence was necessary at the time, but I don’t think so. Clark did not try to reason with Waller, or offer her something, or misdirect her, or lie to her. Instead, he intended to resort to violence. And Waller knew that that was his intent.

IN CONCLUSION
Clark’s and Oliver’s unnecessary and disproportionate threats or displays of violence towards their adversaries make a strong case for why vigilante behavior should not be allowed. Apparently, Clark and Oliver do not draw a line when it comes to when violence is necessary, and how much of it is necessary.

Oliver was going to hurt Tess. Clark did hurt Tess, and Clark was going to hurt Waller. And this is all the more disturbing because Tess and Waller are women. And to say that they’re adversaries, and thus the gloves can come off, is the same as saying that certain women deserve to have violence enacted upon them. It’s the same as saying that some women are asking for it.

This show is sending the message that women who behave and do not offend -- Chloe and Lois, for example -- do not need to be physically threatened, compelled, or punished by men. But, women who misbehave and do offend -- Tess and Waller, for example -- do deserve violence at the hands of men.

And that’s just not a message that I accept or support.

As I said earlier, the line is not easy to define. But it is there, and there has to be some attempt by those who put themselves outside of the law to define it and abide by it. In “Checkmate,” I lost the sense of where Clark’s and Oliver’s lines are. And the only sense that I’ve been left with is that neither of them has any compunction about hurting or threatening to hurt women.

I don’t want to see that kind of mentality or behavior from anyone -- let alone from those who are called heroes, and let alone from someone who soon will be Superman.

AFTERWORD
To take this a step further: How would Martha and Jonathan Kent feel about Clark’s treatment of his female adversaries, such as Tess Mercer? About him unjustifiably threatening, choke-holding, jerking, grabbing, shoving, and tossing Tess? And does his violence towards her say anything about his shows of force towards his loved ones -- towards Lois, even? Where’s the line between Clark manhandling Tess, and Clark manhandling Lois?

Because, according to episodes like “Kandor,” “Pandora,” and “Checkmate,” Clark Kent is entirely capable of violence towards women. It’s just a matter of whether he views a particular woman as an adversary.

Next week, [SPOILER]if I’m seeing the promo correctly, Clark, presumably while on Red-K, is going to haul off and hit Chloe, because he thinks that she and Oliver have betrayed him. Now, some people have already said that Chloe has it comin’. Well, let’s say that Red-K-Clark was to believe his mother or his forever-and-always to have betrayed him: Would Martha or Lois have it comin’ too? Do some women deserve violence, while others don’t? Bad women get hit; good women don’t? Where’s the line? [/SPOILER]

I think you missed the entire point of the scene. She was upset that he was the green arrow and she was pissed so she threw the dagger at him. Maybe she was trying to kill him or maybe she was trying to see if he was the green arrow. The point is that yes it is wrong for men to hit women, like wise it is wrong for a woman to hit a man just because she "can". Being that Tess also lied about being who she is maybe Oliver was upset. Don't forget didn't Tess beat the crap out of Lex Luthor Lacky? Did you complain about that. Or did you root for her because she was a woman. Back to Oliver, almost forgot how it all got started. Oliver was helping a woman he thought needed help but it was Tess disguised and looking like Black Canary. He was helping her because she was attacked by a guy who happened to be in on the plot with Tess. Oliver turns around then she knocks him out. I would see your point if superheroes were beating up any woman they saw without remorse. But come on these women will/ can put you down without blinking and eye. I detest hit women but if a woman has the ability to kill someone i hope she is put down quickly. If you can't stand the fire.......

[bychance]

I kind of rolled my eyes at Tess being held over the building though (here we go again).

I'm not sure if this is a violence against women thing. For me, Superman shouldn't thread anyone like Clark did to Tess, even if it was just to scare her. She's not a baddie with superpowers (if she was than its fair). Holding someone over a roof by their neck is something I'd imagine someone like say, Batman doing.

While I don't like when Clark gets over violent with people(which for arguement sake tonight I don't think he crossed that line) I think it's sort of reverse sexist to say it's bad on females and not point out it's bad on males as well. Clark almost choked Lionel to death in Phantom, I don't think that scene was any better or worse then what he did to Tess in Kandor(I would argue Tess is tougher then Lionel physically)

There's no such thing as 'reverse sexist' Although sexism is normally associated women, sexism can be used either gender.

[bigblueplanet]

Thanks for responding me so quickly, Libby. (And sorry I’m not.)

As you said, yes, we agree to disagree. But since I asked you full of questions and you kindly responded them for me, it seems only fair that I’d do the same.

■ Superman, would he? Or wouldn’t he?

If it's something Superman has done in other incarnations, then I cannot agree with the bolded statement.

You said yourself that they’re OOC moments. Doesn’t it indicate that you also think Superman normally wouldn’t do such things? After all, we are on the same page on this topic - We’re both very uncomfortable with Clark/Tess scene in Checkmate.

You keep saying that the WHY matters, but I don't think it does because to me violence is violence.

You claim that you see violence is just violence but I don’t recall you criticizing Clark for destroying Zod’s towers. To me, violence doesn’t only mean acts of physical aggression but various forms of verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, even financial abuse, and other violations of personal rights – such as taking someone’s memory. IMO, Clark’s violent action in Persuasion certainly caused psychological harm towards people of Metropolis, despite of the fact that Clark's intent was good and no one was hurt (for our argument’s sake). The point still remains that people saw their echo towers suddenly blow up and being destroyed without knowing the intention of their hero (whom they still don’t know being the one behind all this, nor “why”). Put yourself in their place and how would you feel about it? Certainly it would be a traumatic experience, isn’t it?

IMO, Clark/Tess scene went overload with psychological violence towards Tess whom out-of-control-Clark almost kills only two episodes ago.

YMMV but I think it’d be a better if they show us that threatening & intimidating people is not the solution to every situation no matter how powerful you are – even if you’re Superman. SVClark got what he wanted (information on both occasions) by intimidation, not only once but twice, in this season alone.

~ Smallville S8 x 21 “Injustice”　~

Clark: My responsibility is to do what's right. Like it or not, we stand for something. We're set an example for others to follow. If we don't, then we're no better than the people we fight.

But here, what he is setting as examples to this viewer is, threatening & intimidating a weaker person is right thing to do when this said person is not willing to share the information you want. They're sending a very bad message with that, imo, not just about a future Superman, but for anyone. This is the “example” for others to follow according to this version of Clark Kent. I’d think that’s what Bruce Wayne or Wolverine or *insert any other vigilante-like heroes here* would do. Not Clark Kent. Not by a long shot – both younger and older Clark Kent. YMMV

“Like many gifted children, he [Clark Kent] grew up with this precautious wariness of morality and precautious curiosity about it. He understood the consequences of “right and wrong” and “grey”, long before other children did. What that does typically for gifted children is to lead them to develop advanced philosophy of right and wrong at much younger age.”

~ By Robin S. Rosenberg, PH. D. & Editor of “Psychology of Superheroes”.

* * *

■ Balancing between alien and human?

I will say in a statement provided about The World of New Krypton comic book arc that recently wrapped up, it's made clear that there's a distinction made between "human ethics" and Kryptonian ethics, so the idea is hardly exclusive to Smallville:
Granted, the tests may not be that hard when most of the Kryptonians are arrogant fascists; but I suspect one of the character arcs in World Of New Krypton will involve Superman potentially compromising his human ethics in order to bring progress to New Krypton.

~Turning a Corner on the Eternal Triangle, Tom Bondurant, February 10, 2009

Thanks for the quote. But it still doesn’t say anything about Superman being “violent”, though.

Also I remember you saying that good vs. bad is not a matter of nature vs. nurture, but more so about the choices one makes. No matter how he is “embracing” Kryptonian side or “balancing” it, it’s still his choice that matters, isn’t it? Including his choice of action?

On Smallville, we are not dealing with a fully developed Superman, but we are dealing with an origin story which is trying to show us how Superman learns to balance his human and his alien side, his emotions and his objectivity, so that one day his use of unnecessary and controversial violence will be lessened. Hence, I don't feel I am somehow wrong or contradictory in saying that what Clark did to Tess is something Superman is capable of doing, and has done in different incarnations, and it's not something that doesn't serve an important purpose in the larger narrative.

It may be that the times he does it in other versions are seen as out of character moments, but even a Superman who has maturity, including already finding the balance between alien and human, public and private, can have off days just like each and every one of us can have off days.

Personally, I think this “balancing between alien and human” theme is doing more harm than good for the character so far – I mean if all these Clark’s aggressive scenes has been done intentionally as the part of this arc, that is. Because Clark Kent is not an aggressive character, regardless of what Smallville makes you believe, unless this so-called “Mythos” that they’re *supposedly* line up with, is the Golden Age version.

Speaking of which….

I've been told numerous times that Golden Age Superman frequently acted violently. Is his story not part of the "three quarters of a century" during which Superman's story has been told?

As I told you in my last post, I can’t argue that SVClark has many traits of Golden Age Superman.

To answer your question, yes, it is part of his story indeed. But imo, Superman wasn’t the same character back then as he is now. His character traits are so much different as day and night to me. There’re people who likes Superman from all era and there’re people who loves G.A.Superman more than other versions. Some fans want Superman to be much darker & more aggressive. We all have different ideal for *our* Superman. So I can understand if you (general you) like aggressive portrayal of SVClark Kent as well.

[…..]Moreover, controversy implies that an issue generates opposing viewpoints. Otherwise, there would be a consensus. Even the Superman Homepage review of the issue with the event in question did not criticize Superman for his violent tactics.

Isn’t it because maybe this reviewer doesn’t think it was a violent tactics as you did? Because you know, if the reviewer finds something that really bothered him, he usually writes about it. That’s what the reviews are for, right? So maybe –just maybe - he thinks it was a plausible story narrative for this young Superman? But let’s stop assuming. I sent a message to this reviewer asking the question. Hope he’ll respond it for us. (I’ll let you know if he does.)

Has Superman's origin story ever really been told this thoroughly before, though? On television? If Smallville tries to explore the psyche of its protagonist through a television narrative, that is completely new territory (I don't count the Superboy series in the 1980s). As different mediums or forms of expression, television, comics, and film have different conventions. What Smallville is doing is unique, and has been from the inception of the show.

Aren’t they all? When Deborah Joy Levine (the producer of LnC) was approached to do the new Superman show for ABC, she also wanted to make something different and the premise of LnC was certainly new at the time. No one wants to do “remake” (except maybe Brian Singer) but something fresh and fitting for its era I guess. But at least LnC’s version always stay true to the heart of the character.

I thought your explanations of the context of both the Lois and Clark episodes and Birthright are flimsy at best. You have not provided any proof to back up your claims of author's intent other than your own interpretations, which I view as flawed.

And since when do I need a proof to post *my* own interpretation of the episode?

This remark is unnecessary since I made it clear that it was nothing more than my own interpretation - - using “imo”, “for this viewer”, “JMO” for practically in every paragraph. I don’t agree with your interpretations either but at least I understand that they’re your own take and not author’s intent and I certainly don’t need to start asking you for “proof”.

[…..]Just breaking into a U.S. government lab would have been enough to declare Superman an enemy of the public, and this is exactly what happens when a newspaper other than The Daily Planet publishes a headline reading "Superman Attacks" evidence of a "Kryptonian Invasion." The violence against Luthor was immaterial, and we do not see Superman reflect on this experience as a lesson learned about violence or threats of violence. If anything, the comic presents what Superman did as a sympathetic act which is misconstrued by the public because of further machinations of public opinion courtesy of Luthor.

Exactly! And the headline of the paper said it all. “Superman Attacks”. THIS is the fallout of his action. That’s the one of the reasons why this Superman/Lex scene works for me, because not only Superman failed to get what he wanted, his action caused consequences as well.

Yes, but the answer has always been that Clark hasn't matured yet.

No, it doesn't make them excusable or justifiable. It does, as you say, make them understandable in terms of a larger narrative about character development.

I hope you’re right. Because the character narrative has been mainly negative for Clark in this show when I look at show’s canon.


■ And our discussion wrt LnC still continues…….

You keep mentioning fan reaction as if you (a) have proof of that reaction beyond your own hearsay, and (b) as if that matters in the context of the discussion we are having.

(a) You mean, beyond our own hearsay? You keep saying that I don’t have a “proof” but it’s odd when, (1) both you and I are living proof of that and, (2) you also said exactly the same thing (see below).

I wish it hadn't played out that way because, as you say, most people have a negative reaction to it (as was the case with DCClark's action with Dillinger).

(b) Yes, it does matter to me in the context that many fans would recognize it as a bad portrayal for the character when OOC moment does happen. Because as I told you before, I believe that the reaction from the fans can sometimes save the character from bad writing. Please don’t keep dismissing my opinions as if they don’t matter in the context of the discussion, just because you don’t share the same opinion.

Who called it "failure writing," and what fan criticism? Sources, please.

As I said above, you are my No.1 source, Libby. You labeled this scene as a “failure” or you wouldn’t keep posting it as an “evidential” reference every time SVClark engaged with an unnecessary violence, would you? And this is not about “How many fans criticized the scene vs. how many didn’t” discussion, either.

Thanks for blaming the opinion of mine to which you disagree on apparently not analyzing one of my examples with characteristic depth. It couldn't just be that I have a different opinion, right? Okay.

I’m not blaming you for anything. I was just genuinely surprised - that’s what happens when I see not enough “context” (as in, your own take on the scene that you referenced) in your posts, but now I understand your views much better since you kindly explained it. Thank you.

In each instance, the episode or comic in question neither depicts Superman as receiving any consequences for the act of violence itself, nor do they depict Superman as showing any remorse for the actual wrongness of the violence. Moreover, the context of each of these examples, which you seem to be ignoring, is also that these are fully formed Supermen experiencing these lapses, and not a still developing Superman who Clark is at present on Smallville. So color me confused about whatever "bigger picture" you seem to think I'm not addressing.

This is why I thought you haven’t seen the whole episode, Libby. I saw consequences for both Borthright!Superman (“Superman Attacks!”) and DCSuperman (Tempus changed his strategy and traps Superman in the void of eternity). You chose not to see these. If anyone is ignoring the story narrative, it’s certainly not me.

How can you say "DCClark was nowhere near in the similar situation compare to SVClark intimidating Tess in Checkmate" and then note that Tempus and DCSuperman had a history? You list three instances in which DCSuperman had a run-in with Tempus, yet Clark on Smallville has so much more history with Tess than a few encounters.

How can I say? Because that’s what I saw.

Clark's first significant negative interaction with Tess was when she used the Injustice League to fool him with a fake Chloe and steal the Phantom Zone crystal away from him so he could fulfill his destiny of defeating Doomsday. Clark also knew that Tess was suspicious based on her prying into his secret and Lois' strange behavior in Bloodline.

And DCClark wasn’t suspicious of Tempus at all. Because Tempus proved DCClark that he is a borderline psychopath in their first encounter. (I mean, he tried to kill a baby!!!) That’s why from the moment Tempus re-appears, DCClark was determined to put him into the jail for good. And I thought SVClark was also convinced that Tess murdered at least two people in Injustice.

Don’t you think more Clark knows how bad Tess is, more it makes Clark look bad that he is not doing anything about it?

Here, you talked about Bloodline (S8 x 08) but when she talked about her abusive childhood experience to Clark in Turbulence (S8 x 16), he expressed his sincere sympathy (Clark:“I’m just glad it has a happy ending…… look at you now”. And look at how he treats her now!) towards her and later even defends her action (of attempting to kill Lana!!!) saying Tess was just trying to destroy the power suit. In Injustice (S8 x 21), he was convinced that she killed two members of Injustice Gang but didn’t do anything to uncover the truth when her people (supposedly) covers up her tracks.

Clark's second significant negative interaction with Tess was when he discovered that she accused Lois of stealing an alien orb and engaging in a fist fight with her before Lois disappeared on the night of Doomsday. In Crossfire, he finds out that she's hired a computer genius, Stuart, to keep people from prying into her tracking of Kandorians. In Kandor, perhaps the most important betrayal occurs when Clark discovers that Tess had his father kidnapped and left vulnerable to an attack that led to his father's murder.

Again, if Clark knows Tess shot Stuart, what she put Lois through and kidnapping Jor-El, why is she still walking free?

Continuing with Clark's history with Tess, he finds that Tess kidnapped Lois to invade her memories and shot Stuart Campbell. In Absolute Justice, Clark sees Tess rifling through Lois' desk and in Persuasion he sees her in the midst of attacking Chloe and demonstrates his knowledge of just how deep Tess got into trying to help the Kandorians get their powers. Checkmate revealed that Tess was a part of the organization that had kidnapped his friend, the Green Arrow--the same organization he knew had gone after his newly made JSA friends.

In sum, Clark and Tess, in my opinion, have an even more extensive history of antagonism than DCSuperman and Tempus.

You said he has “even more extensive history” with Tess, but the show canon tells us he is not doing much (actually not a thing onscreen) about it. It just doesn’t give us the sense of neither immediate nor intense danger no matter how Tess is supposedly dangerous from Clark's POV.

If she is such an antagonist for Clark as you claim, why doesn’t he also LoJacked Tess or put 24h surveillance on her, trying to catch her in the murderous/dubious act? Why doesn’t he use his investigative reporter position to expose her conspiracies (Zod towers for the first half or/and dead Injustice Gang members’ case, etc)?

If he has done any sort of precaution or/and investigation, wouldn’t he eventually find out about her connection with Checkmate and its whereabouts especially with a badass tracking system of the Watchtower and equally badass Queen’s Industry’s satellite? Or even better. Using his own superpowers perhaps?

That’s the problem of this show’s writing, imo. The Clark/Tess scene came out of nowhere. There’re no story build-up before & after. It comes, WHAM! and go, Poof. If they made Clark react so strongly, at least show us the follow-up story involving Clark/Tess that he is doing something (anything!) about her. Geez.

Regardless, it would seem as if you are making the argument that there are some instances where violence of this sort can be acceptable based on "the context" (i.e. the context in "Meet John Doe" makes DCSuperman's violence justified).

My argument was never about whether or not his action is “acceptable”. That’s your argument. (Because I don’t see violence is just violence like you do, remember?) My argument is about whether or not it serves the character and the narrative story. But I also thought you were making the argument that there are some instances where violence of this sort can be acceptable. Isn't this why you were okay with Clark’s violent action of destroying Zod’s towers because of “the context”? Or am I mistaken?

When DCSuperman made a mistake and let Tempus sees his fear, Tempus changed his strategy and decide to get rid of Superman once and for all, instead of pushing him to come around and works for him. He succeeded and DCSuperman was exiled in the eternity. Again, his action cost him severe consequences. It’s simple. When I see Superman does something against his ethic code, I’d expect to see the consequences of his action. I’ve got it in both “Meet John Doe” and “Birthright”.

Let’s see what the SVClark’s consequences are – if there’s one that is. Many fans (tell me in case if you need a proof on this one) thought there’re consequences after SVClark use super violent tactics and destroyed the Zod towers in Persuasion but SVwriters swept it under the rug and said it was just a “Freak accident”. I doubt it would be any different this time but as always, let’s wait and see.

The scene in Lois and Clark: TNAoS, for instance, doesn't explain WHY Superman did what he did other than he was angry and afraid--angry at Tempus and afraid for Lois' life. How is that context, a Superman angry at a villain (Tess) and afraid (for his JLA friends getting the JSA treatment) not analogous enough for me to draw parallels? In "That Old Gang of Mine," again Superman didn't even have these same motivations. He just wanted answers to stop the bad guys, and he showed absolutely no remorse afterward.

Are you sure you’re being fair to DCSuperman here that if SVClark did the similar thing after someone attempts to kill SVLana or SVLois, or attempts to rule the entire world & put everyone into slavery, you wouldn’t be excusing him for such a thing?

I had to ask since I know what kind of “interpretations” you have been coming up with, for every single Smallville’s episode. Here is one example;

You said this (below),

Furthermore, I don't quite see why it matters that [DC]Clark was stressed from nightmares.

But then, this is what you said about SVLois dream;

According to the episode, Lois did mention the NC-17 violence part of her dreams to Dr. Evans. She chose to focus on sex part of the dream because it was interfering with her work. It was the first thing on her mind at the time she came to speak with Dr. Evans. As a counselor myself, I work with some students who have legitimate horrors in their life, but sometimes they just want to talk to me about the problems they're having with their friends or their boyfriends. Lois speaking to Dr. Evans about the sex in her dreams versus the violence in her dreams has nothing to do with her investigative ability. It has everything to do with how one part of her dreams was affecting her the day she went to see her therapist and the events occurring in her own life that made addressing the sex part of her dream more urgent. [……]

DCClark was stressed from nightmares because it directly linked with what’s going on with Tempus and it interferes him day and night. Don’t you think you can see DCSuperman the way you see SVLois here? Not even a bit? I don’t understand how you see SVLois’s nightmare as legitimate and yet dismiss DCClark’s nightmare as if it doesn’t matter, when everything was literally falling apart into chaos in front of his eyes by the guy who takes Lois away from him in his nightmares.

Why are you trying to justify Superman's use of violence in Lois and Clark through an exploration of context?

I’m just simply disagreeing with your take, Libby, just like you are disagreeing with mine. You referenced these moments from other shows because for you, his counterparts was doing the same thing in the similar situations. I disagree. Can I also ask you why are you trying to make other show(s)/comic storytelling looks worse than they possibly are (imo anyway), every time SVClark is written badly?

It also happens to me all the time when I think something doesn’t work in the comics, but I don’t have to point that out at the expense of Smallville every time I see one. But again, that’s just me.

I was only 10 when "That Old Gang of Mine" aired, so I'm sorry if I can't take your word about what you seem to be describing as intense outrage at the episode. I know I read Zoomway's take on the episodes on Lois and Clark, and she doesn't single what Superman did out for any criticism.

Zoom told me she didn’t do “reviews” for LnC but only wrote “Essay”. Where did you read her reviews on “That Old Gang of Mine”?

But anywho, what if Zoom did? Are you saying you can take her words (= her interpretation) but not mine? If you’ve read her Smallville reviews over the years, you do know that she has written one of the most critical reviews for Smallville ever since Pilot, don’t you? And those were the times when even the infamous-Neal (from SH) was giving 5/5 for the show!

What other series have portrayed a young Clark Kent dealing with the extensive development and psychological turmoil that Smallville's Clark has experienced? The Donner film version of Clark's youth skipped over this stage in his life with a trip to the Fortress. Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman never touched on Clark's youth and light switched Clark into Superman in the pilot episode. Superboy doesn't count, in my opinion, and I've never seen it anyway. The comics have only devoted a few issues or panels to Clark's development, which is hardly equivalent to the medium that Smallville is dealing with as a television program which has aired weekly for almost 10 years. Since Smallville, according to [SPOILER]Brian Peterson in recent interviews, took the approach that this season was Clark exploring his colder, Kryptonian side[/SPOILER], as part of his journey to figuring out his identity, there's even a narrative purpose to what we've seen this year and earlier given that from S1-now Clark has yet to achieve a oneness with each side of who he is.

You keep talking as if Clark is two different persons - young-Clark and older-Clark.

To me, Clark Kent is someone who chooses to do right thing when to do wrong would be so easy for him, and his age has nothing to do with it. IMO there’s a reason that the Superman writers chose a Midwestern farm ("traditional American heartland") as the setting for his childhood and raised by the Kents with a strong moral compass – which is another thing that failed in this series, imo, but that’s for another thread.

So, DCClark has been light switched into Superman in your opinion. Are you saying what makes Superman is the costume then? Not the man under the suit?

You’re accepting everything SVClark does or doesn’t do under the name of either “youth” or/and “Not yet called by the name Superman”. This is where I strongly disagree with you. For me, Clark is not Superman the second he can fly or don the suit, nor the moment he is called “Superman”. And I think it’s time for these writers to step up and write him as the show’s main focus instead of making him look like a secondary character. I no longer excuse PTB for their sucking skills of series’ direction & characterization of their protagonist. IMO, this Clark has suffered from it way too long. Enough already. JMO

.

[ginevrakent]

You said yourself that they’re OOC moments. Doesn’t it indicate that you also think Superman normally wouldn’t do such things? After all, we are on the same page on this topic - We’re both very uncomfortable with Clark/Tess scene in Checkmate.

Yes, normally Superman doesn't do such things, but since he's been shown to do them, I can't say that it isn't in character for Superman to have these types of out of character moments. For instance, normally I am a very shy person in my everyday interactions with people. However, once in a while, and in certain situations, I can actually be quite outgoing. Even though it isn't my typical behavior, it is still a part of me and how I act in a specific context given a certain set of variables. Therefore, when I look at Clark's behavior on Smallville in particular circumstances and see in it a reflection of what other Supermen have done, I can say that he is acting in a similar manner.

You claim that you see violence is just violence but I don’t recall you criticizing Clark for destroying Zod’s towers. To me, violence doesn’t only mean acts of physical aggression but various forms of verbal, emotional, psychological, sexual, even financial abuse, and other violations of personal rights – such as taking someone’s memory. IMO, Clark’s violent action in Persuasion certainly caused psychological harm towards people of Metropolis, despite of the fact that Clark's intent was good and no one was hurt (for our argument’s sake). The point still remains that people saw their echo towers suddenly blow up and being destroyed without knowing the intention of their hero (whom they still don’t know being the one behind all this, nor “why”). Put yourself in their place and how would you feel about it? Certainly it would be a traumatic experience, isn’t it?

Why would I criticize Clark destroying Zod's towers? I may not have been overjoyed about it, but I thought it was appropriate for the circumstances. When I saw the scene, I believed that Clark did not harm anyone in the process of taking down those towers, and I was right. He didn't. I was never informed about or shown that his taking down the towers caused psychological harm to the people of Metropolis. You've just assumed that. Since it was labeled an accident, Metropolitans would likely view it as unfortunate, but not as something for which they should be fearful. I can put myself in their place, and with the information the show gave me, I can answer most assertively that no, I would not be psychologically affected by what Clark did to Zod's towers. I would, however, have felt that way if Clark hadn't acted and I was killed or imprisoned by alien overlords.

IMO, Clark/Tess scene went overload with psychological violence towards Tess whom out-of-control-Clark almost kills only two episodes ago.

Clark almost killed Tess? I never saw that. Furthermore, I don't see the psychological effect of what Clark did to Tess as any different than DCSuperman telling Tempus that if he went near Lois he'd shown Tempus that his ethics would disappear, or when he threatened Amanda Waller in that scan I provided previously. Actually, I'd say that the most psychologically violent person to Tess in Checkmate was Oliver Queen.

YMMV but I think it’d be a better if they show us that threatening & intimidating people is not the solution to every situation no matter how powerful you are – even if you’re Superman. SVClark got what he wanted (information on both occasions) by intimidation, not only once but twice, in this season alone.

I think it would be better too. I have not been arguing that it's okay for them to infuse Smallville with an abundance of these scenes because I'm just so apathetic about them . However, I will say that this is only the second time Clark has gone after Tess without the influence of a form of kryptonite, so two occasions in an entire season does not equate to the show portraying Clark as using this method as a "solution to every situation." The entire basis of this season is Clark trying to "save Zod" as a solution to the threat he posed. It may have worked both times with Tess, however to critique Clark's entire characterization based on only those two instances in which Clark adopted a certain method of problem solving seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

But here, what he is setting as examples to this viewer is, threatening & intimidating a weaker person is right thing to do when this said person is not willing to share the information you want. They're sending a very bad message with that, imo, not just about a future Superman, but for anyone. This is the “example” for others to follow according to this version of Clark Kent. I’d think that’s what Bruce Wayne or Wolverine or *insert any other vigilante-like heroes here* would do. Not Clark Kent. Not by a long shot – both younger and older Clark Kent. YMMV

I don't disagree with this. Where I have always disagreed with you is that there isn't a purpose to showing Clark acting in this manner. We have been told that Clark was going to act more Kryptonian this season, and that he'd flirt with that side of himself more and more as he struggled to reconnect to the human side--to regain his faith in the humanity inside himself--after the events of Doomsday. Thus, when the narrative of the show provides us an example of Clark acting in a certain way that unsettles us, it is doing its job in getting us to ponder how Clark has changed since the events of last year and how he will change further as his development progresses. If in future episodes or next season, we see Clark establish a more constructive equilibrium between his alien and human natures as well as adopt a less violent or pragmatic approach to solving problems, a viewer could look back on the entirety of the journey and say that the lesson was that such approaches, used consistently, are to be avoided.

“Like many gifted children, he [Clark Kent] grew up with this precautious wariness of morality and precautious curiosity about it. He understood the consequences of “right and wrong” and “grey”, long before other children did. What that does typically for gifted children is to lead them to develop advanced philosophy of right and wrong at much younger age.”~ By Robin S. Rosenberg, PH. D. & Editor of “Psychology of Superheroes”.

This is a wonderful sentiment, but I have to deal with the Clark Kent that Smallville has given me in their narrative. While it may be correct to say that other Clark Kents developed a clear immutable stance of right and wrong as a result of his childhood experiences, Smallville's Clark Kent has faced a different kind of upbringing and different life experiences. His human father, Jonathan Kent, has frequently been described as a "hot head" on Smallville and his Kryptonian father urges him to rule with strength. The Clark Kent on Smallville has been, and will continue to be on a different journey, but the endpoint will be the same. Therefore, despite the applicability of that quote to our overall discussion, I don't find it has much bearing on Smallville's Clark Kent.

Thanks for the quote. But it still doesn’t say anything about Superman being “violent”, though.

I didn't provide the quote to make a direct comment about violence. The point of sharing one of the themes of The World of New Krypton's narrative arc for Clark/Kal-El, was to illustrate that it is the opinion of modern writers of Superman that when Clark explores his Kryptonian side more, he finds it clashes with his "human ethics." Consequently, I can see Smallville's PTB who have echoed WoNK throughout the season, and who have stated that they were doing so deliberately in an interview at Comic-Con prior to the season airing, utilizing that idea in their own take on Clark Kent. Given Brian Peterson's recent interviews about Clark acting as the cold Kryptonian savior this season, I'd say that there's a certain measure of synergy going on between the comics and Smallville at present.

Also I remember you saying that good vs. bad is not a matter of nature vs. nurture, but more so about the choices one makes. No matter how he is “embracing” Kryptonian side or “balancing” it, it’s still his choice that matters, isn’t it? Including his choice of action?

Of course it's the choice that matters. I'm simply saying that currently the show is exploring Clark's choice to embrace a more Kryptonian approach because of Clark's choice in Doomsday to rely less on his human taught morals and instincts because he had lost faith in his own humanity, believing it was it that had led him astray and prevented him from doing what needed to be done in order to be the hero he believed the world needed. See, right now, Clark is trying to figure out what kind of hero he is going to be. He doesn't know he's supposed to be Superman or what kind of hero Superman is. We know this, but Clark doesn't. So throughout the season we might see glimpses of him trying out these different approaches to heroism. The product of this season, then, will be similar to Goldilocks who, after trying the two extreme temperatures of porridge, settles down to the one that is "just right."

Personally, I think this “balancing between alien and human” theme is doing more harm than good for the character so far – I mean if all these Clark’s aggressive scenes has been done intentionally as the part of this arc, that is. Because Clark Kent is not an aggressive character, regardless of what Smallville makes you believe, unless this so-called “Mythos” that they’re *supposedly* line up with, is the Golden Age version.

Since Clark isn't Superman yet, but only on the cusp of it, and is currently exploring his Kryptonian side more than ever, my response to you is that is if Checkmate had been the final episode, then they would have lined Clark up to a more aggressive version of his mythos counterpart. However, as this is only part of the journey, the purpose seems to be showing that this is one way Clark could go, but since he'll ultimately choose another path--a more righteous path--it isn't who he really is or Superman really is, but rather it's a part of him that he has to learn to understand and control just like he had to do with his abilities when he first acquired them.

To answer your question, yes, it is part of his story indeed. But imo, Superman wasn’t the same character back then as he is now. His character traits are so much different as day and night to me. There’re people who likes Superman from all era and there’re people who loves G.A.Superman more than other versions. Some fans want Superman to be much darker & more aggressive. We all have different ideal for *our* Superman. So I can understand if you (general you) like aggressive portrayal of SVClark Kent as well.

I still don't know why me saying that there are examples and precedent for a more violent Superman means that I like that version of the character. I do not, and I have not ever claimed that I liked any of Clark's aggressive acts. I have only been saying that this behavior is neither foreign to fully developed Supermen, nor is it something which cannot be explored as part of narrative which is building to Clark ultimately embracing a different, and more positive approach. It is the latter approach, the more Supermanly approach, that I like and hope for Clark to adopt as his journey comes to a close. However, since his journey is not over and since I know from other versions of the post-origin story mythos that this aggressive side will still come out on occasion, I am able to go along for the ride.

Isn’t it because maybe this reviewer doesn’t think it was a violent tactics as you did? Because you know, if the reviewer finds something that really bothered him, he usually writes about it. That’s what the reviews are for, right? So maybe –just maybe - he thinks it was a plausible story narrative for this young Superman? But let’s stop assuming. I sent a message to this reviewer asking the question. Hope he’ll respond it for us. (I’ll let you know if he does.)

If these types of actions on Superman's part are so bothersome and so anomalous, I would expect it would be something that would be noted right away. Since this reviewer did not take note of it, as viewers of Checkmate immediately took note of what Clark did, I assume that either violence in cartoon or comic book form does not have as much of a visceral impact on consumers (which is disturbing), or I assume that it simply wasn't enough of an out of character moment for Superman.

Aren’t they all? When Deborah Joy Levine (the producer of LnC) was approached to do the new Superman show for ABC, she also wanted to make something different and the premise of LnC was certainly new at the time. No one wants to do “remake” (except maybe Brian Singer) but something fresh and fitting for its era I guess. But at least LnC’s version always stay true to the heart of the character.

LnC writers wrote their Superman as not only having an entirely different upbringing, but the character they were writing was a fully developed Superman. We don't know how DCSuperman came to adopt the methods he adopted or if he faltered on his evolutionary journey (however long and complicated it may have been). We're simply left to assume that he did learn those lessons; yet even as a adult he had weak moments like in "That Old Gang of Mine" and "Meet John Doe." So the heart of the character matters in the context of comparing one grown Superman to another, but given that Clark is still on the way to fulfilling that destiny, his heart may be in a different place at present. In fact, we have been told explicitly that since he is experiencing an "identity crisis" of a sort, that his heart is torn between the two sides of himself and what kind of person and hero he wants to be and the world needs him to be.

And since when do I need a proof to post *my* own interpretation of the episode?

You should provide proof when you make claims about author's intent and when suggest certain violent acts of Superman in other media were on the receiving end of a significant amount of negative fan reaction. An interpretation of actual scenes, however, does not require proof.

This remark is unnecessary since I made it clear that it was nothing more than my own interpretation - - using “imo”, “for this viewer”, “JMO” for practically in every paragraph. I don’t agree with your interpretations either but at least I understand that they’re your own take and not author’s intent and I certainly don’t need to start asking you for “proof”.

I reiterate, if you are going to make claims about fan reaction, I'm not just going to believe you. You can have an opinion about what a scene means in a comic or a TV show, but you cannot have an opinion about fan reaction.

Exactly! And the headline of the paper said it all. “Superman Attacks”. THIS is the fallout of his action. That’s the one of the reasons why this Superman/Lex scene works for me, because not only Superman failed to get what he wanted, his action caused consequences as well.

The fallout of Superman's violent action with Luthor, which parallels Clark's actions with Tess, is not the reason for that headline, according to the comic. The reason for that headline was because Superman trespassed on government property. The scene showed that Superman went in there to get answers about Krypton and he got them. He now carries that knowledge with him, and thus did not leave empty handed. Were there other effects of his actions? Yes. However, the comic shows that Clark acquired information he wanted from Luthor and that the indictment of him as an attacker was because of his actions toward the property in Luthor was located, and not specifically on Luthor himself. Superman would have been smeared in the press whether he had choked Lex or not, in other words. It was a set up that only needed Superman to flew into the area, he played into Luthor's hands. Hence the comic does not communicate, IMO, that Superman's use of violence was unproductive, wrong, or that Superman learned not to do such a thing again. YMMV.

(a) You mean, beyond our own hearsay? You keep saying that I don’t have a “proof” but it’s odd when, (1) both you and I are living proof of that and, (2) you also said exactly the same thing (see below).

What am I proof of? You claim that fans at the time were upset with Superman's actions toward Dillinger in "That Old Gang of Mine." I have only ever noted that episode because it is one of my favorites (I liked the romantic aspect and the history aspect of it), therefore the whole episode is memorable to me. I didn't recall what Superman did to Dillinger because it stood out from the rest of an episode I loved for unrelated reasons, and I don't bring it up because I had a visceral reaction to it as a child when I saw it the first time. You never brought it up initially, so you talking about it and our continued discussion of it is more about us analyzing Superman's evident use of violence in certain situations, and not evidence that the incident itself was controversial at the time. Now if you can demonstrate that it was controversial at the time, then that would interest me greatly.

(b) Yes, it does matter to me in the context that many fans would recognize it as a bad portrayal for the character when OOC moment does happen. Because as I told you before, I believe that the reaction from the fans can sometimes save the character from bad writing. Please don’t keep dismissing my opinions as if they don’t matter in the context of the discussion, just because you don’t share the same opinion.

Forgive me, but I followed the linked post which this comment is a response to, and it's from something I said back in November. I don't even understand your reason for quoting it or the accusations you're throwing at me for dismissing your opinions based on the part of this very old post you bolded.

This is the original quote from November 11, 2009 you quoted. The part you cut out and highlighted in the post of yours I'm responding to now is in red:

bigblueplanet, I don't know how I can present my position any more clearly. I stated that all of the instances of Superman being rough make me uncomfortable, including the scene in Kandor. I wish it hadn't played out that way because, as you say, most people have a negative reaction to it (as was the case with DCClark's action with Dillinger). It is considered out of character for all Supermen to treat human beings that way no matter what the context, and it is not going to perceived positively by me or by the viewing audience as a whole.

The examples that I provided merely show that these OOC moments do happen. Sometimes they are handled as OOC character moments and sometimes they are not. Nevertheless, when people state that Clark or Superman would NEVER treat someone the way he treated Tess, they are mistaken. It doesn't make the scene any less repulsive and it doesn't lessen my desire to see few to none of these types of scenes again.

How is what I said in red five months ago in any way a dismissal of your opinions? I have come to question the veracity of your claim that LnC fans disliked the Dillinger scene, and have asked that you share with me (since I was 10 at the time) how you knew there was a negative fan reaction to DCSuperman. It's an honest question that is not meant to offend, but my apologies if it does.

As I said above, you are my No.1 source, Libby. You labeled this scene as a “failure” or you wouldn’t keep posting it as an “evidential” reference every time SVClark engaged with an unnecessary violence, would you? And this is not about “How many fans criticized the scene vs. how many didn’t” discussion, either.

This makes absolutely no sense. First, you're the one who first gave me the impression that fans reacted negatively to the Dilliinger scene, and at the time I took your word for it. The following is the post before the one I quoted with comments highlighted in red, indicating that you were the one who first brought other fan reaction into the discussion albeit about another incident in another episode (take note that your claim that the writers listened to complaints is invalidated by the repeat occurrence of this behavior on DCSuperman's part in S4's "Meet John Doe"):

As for LnC, the fans of the show complained about the way Dillinger(the man who is falling in the pic) was handled by Superman in this particular scene saying that Dillinger would have been dead if he was caught by a man of steel after falling from that kind of height. And the LnC writers seemed to listen to the fans (GASPS! ) and the following episodes from this point had Superman flying up to catch falling people for the most part. The point being, when writers portray Superman/Clark Kent in a bad light – which is of course matters of opinion as this thread indicates -, his fans react to it whether it’s movie, TV show or in the comics. And this time I’m one of those fans who thought it was a bad storytelling wrt Clark/Tess confrontation. JMO

Second, I really am curious how I can be your number one source to support your claim that there was negative fan reaction (not just negative reaction from me, Libby) for what DCSuperman did in "That Old Gang of Mine." I may label the scene a failure, but I'm not all of LnC's fans, and you have been trying to argue that when Superman has these violent outbursts people (not just me) take notice because it's so out of character. I've even explained that my negative opinion of Superman's violent actions no matter what the context is based on my own personal beliefs about violence. However, my opinions about Superman as a character and Smallville as a narrative are not entirely based on my personal beliefs. I judge Superman and Smallville based on the history of the character in both the mythos and on Smallville. Consequently, when I see Superman act overly or unnecessarily violent my personal reaction is to be unsettled, but my general (meta) response to it is a synthesis of my understanding of this type of behavior as no different than Superman having an off day, as all of us have off days. This can happen when one struggles to deal with a crisis be it external, internal, or both--an external struggle being a threat to self and others, an internal struggle being an identity crisis between alien and kryptonian, and both being when those two struggles collide as they did with Clark in Checkmate.

This is why I thought you haven’t seen the whole episode, Libby. I saw consequences for both Borthright!Superman (“Superman Attacks!”) and DCSuperman (Tempus changed his strategy and traps Superman in the void of eternity). You chose not to see these. If anyone is ignoring the story narrative, it’s certainly not me.

So now you're accusing me of choosing to see things a certain way? I had come to believe you thought this kind of accusation was offensive and uncalled for given our discussion about the ambiguity of Lois' knowledge of Zod's position of CEO of RAO in Conspiracy. I stand corrected. I disagree that Tempus changing his strategy can be directly linked to what Superman did to him. I thought the episode conveyed that it was his intention to do that all along. He even says at the beginning of the episode (pre-altercation) that this was his objective: "Soon I'll have everything I want: World conquest, and as a bonus--the destruction of Superman..." I've already explained my interpretation of Birthright, so I won't repeat it here.

How can I say? Because that’s what I saw.

It's a rhetorical question. I was just wondering what the thought process was that led you to your conclusion since I see Tess and Tempus as being equally formidable foes.

And DCClark wasn’t suspicious of Tempus at all. Because Tempus proved DCClark that he is a borderline psychopath in their first encounter. (I mean, he tried to kill a baby!!!) That’s why from the moment Tempus re-appears, DCClark was determined to put him into the jail for good. And I thought SVClark was also convinced that Tess murdered at least two people in Injustice.

Did Clark have any substantive evidence Tess was behind the murders in Injustice? Knowing a villain has done something villainous doesn't necessarily equate to having the capability of bringing said villain to justice.

Don’t you think more Clark knows how bad Tess is, more it makes Clark look bad that he is not doing anything about it?

I'm not convinced there is much he could do about it, honestly. Superman doesn't seem to be able to bring Lex Luthor to justice in the comics despite what he knows he's capable of and the crimes he has committed. Isn't Tess really just a Lady Lex, after all?

Again, if Clark knows Tess shot Stuart, what she put Lois through and kidnapping Jor-El, why is she still walking free?

She's walking free because she's Tess Mercer. She's powerful and well-connected. As we saw in Upgrade, she knows how to make sure that every mess is cleaned up.

You said he has “even more extensive history” with Tess, but the show canon tells us he is not doing much (actually not a thing onscreen) about it. It just doesn’t give us the sense of neither immediate nor intense danger no matter how Tess is supposedly dangerous from Clark's POV.

Clark treats Tess the same way Superman treats Lex in the comics. He recognizes her as a dangerous threat, but also acknowledges there is very little he can do to stop her.

If she is such an antagonist for Clark as you claim, why doesn’t he also LoJacked Tess or put 24h surveillance on her, trying to catch her in the murderous/dubious act? Why doesn’t he use his investigative reporter position to expose her conspiracies (Zod towers for the first half or/and dead Injustice Gang members’ case, etc)?

Isn't Chloe doing this? In Rabid, Chloe hacked into Tess' mansion security video and she also recruited Stuart in Crossfire. On this show, Clark seems to delegate the responsibility for surveillance to Chloe. Oh, and the journalism angle would be a little difficult, don't you think? You know with Tess being his boss and everything. Lois tried to take down Lex in Season 7 and Chloe tried in Season 6. With this kind of background, I'm not surprised Clark does not buy into the power of the press.

If he has done any sort of precaution or/and investigation, wouldn’t he eventually find out about her connection with Checkmate and its whereabouts especially with a badass tracking system of the Watchtower and equally badass Queen’s Industry’s satellite? Or even better. Using his own superpowers perhaps?

I think you have an extremely optimistic view of what hacking and superpowers can accomplish.

That’s the problem of this show’s writing, imo. The Clark/Tess scene came out of nowhere. There’re no story build-up before & after. It comes, WHAM! and go, Poof. If they made Clark react so strongly, at least show us the follow-up story involving Clark/Tess that he is doing something (anything!) about her. Geez.

There's really not much he can do, in my opinion, other than continue monitoring Tess via whatever Chloe is doing at the Watchtower since the first few episodes of the season. He can't kill her (obviously), he can't put her in jail because I'm sure she has an army of lawyers who can get any suit against her dismissed, he can't use the power of the press because she owns the press, and he can't out Checkmate because Checkmate is the government (a government group that is anti-alien no less). Clark doesn't have many, if any, options, IMO.

Anyway, all this discussion of Tess is fascinating. However, the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of Clark's approach to Tess and her villainy seems like a distraction from the topic at hand. This doesn't change the fact that Tess, on the show and in Clark's mind in Checkmate and other episodes, is perceived as an antagonist and a threat. Consequently, SVClark and DCSuperman had the same emotional motivations for acting violently IMHO.

My argument was never about whether or not his action is “acceptable”. That’s your argument. (Because I don’t see violence is just violence like you do, remember?)

My "violence is violence" point of view is my own personal belief system. I don't judge everything based on perspective because I understand the validity of different viewpoints. In short, I'm a relativist. Thus I interpret the show based on established conventions for the genre and character. I ask myself: Is this something Superman would do? From his point of view, is it justified? I don't ask myself: Is Superman doing something I would do? From my point of view, is it justified?

In addition, my "violence is violence" point of view does not excuse violence or make it acceptable. That's a wild misreading of my opinion. My personal opinion is that violence is unacceptable, but when I'm watching a television show with characters who are not me, who have their own distinct set of formative life experiences, and who have iconic counterparts against whom I can establish a standard of behavior, I judge them based on their history, their morals, and their canon standards.

Consequently, Superman and Clark is only unnecessarily violent when he goes against established character norms. Yet, it is also in character for Superman and Clark to occasionally make mistakes and to let emotions overrule judgment. In other words, it is an established character norm for Superman or Clark to occasionally screw up. When Superman or Clark is violent, he is therefore being unequivocally violent. His violence is not excusable, but it is an in character moment. It is something Superman or Clark did to address a crisis or deal with an emotion. Just because unnecessary violence is an anomaly doesn't make it an act that is not associated with the character of Superman. It may be a bad character moment for Superman, but it isn't out of character.

My argument is about whether or not it serves the character and the narrative story. But I also thought you were making the argument that there are some instances where violence of this sort can be acceptable. Isn't this why you were okay with Clark’s violent action of destroying Zod’s towers because of “the context”? Or am I mistaken?

I believe showing Clark as occasionally making mistakes, ethical, moral, or otherwise, serves his narrative because I view it as part of his journey. I also view these mistakes as in character for Superman since they occur throughout other media as either mistakes or as standard operating procedure for the character. I was not happy with the fact that Clark had to resort to destroying the towers, but I understand the reasons why it had to be done. Let me make myself clear: I did not like the fact that Clark had to violently destroy the towers. It was a mistake to wait so long to address the issue. However, the alternative was even more terrifying. It was the lesser of two evils, in other words.

When DCSuperman made a mistake and let Tempus sees his fear, Tempus changed his strategy and decide to get rid of Superman once and for all, instead of pushing him to come around and works for him. He succeeded and DCSuperman was exiled in the eternity. Again, his action cost him severe consequences. It’s simple. When I see Superman does something against his ethic code, I’d expect to see the consequences of his action. I’ve got it in both “Meet John Doe” and “Birthright”.

A series like Lois and Clark is primarily composed of standalone episodes. Smallville works with long-term acts. The consequences for Clark's actions against Tess did not manifest themselves until Upgrade. Because Clark continued to act violent towards Tess and rejected her without any sympathy, Tess expedited her Metallo project and turned Zod against Clark.

I'm still not sure why you keep suggesting Superman experienced consequences for his actions against Luthor in Birthright. According to the comic, it was a set up from the beginning. The simple act of flying into the military base was enough to slander Superman in the press. In other words, he was doomed from the start. Should Clark or Superman avoid any sort of action in the future just because there's a possibility he could be framed?

Are you sure you’re being fair to DCSuperman here that if SVClark did the similar thing after someone attempts to kill SVLana or SVLois, or attempts to rule the entire world & put everyone into slavery, you wouldn’t be excusing him for such a thing?

I'm sorry, but I thought I was being clear. I am using Dean Cain Clark's actions in these episodes to "excuse" Clark in that I admonish him for the action, but do not think it's faulty writing or inconsistent with similar events in the larger Superman mythos. I'm suggesting that Superman sometimes acts violently because he simply makes a mistake or allows his emotional strain to overcome his better judgment. I recognize these incidents as mistakes and as worthy of controversy. I acknowledge them as canon examples of Superman letting his emotions get the better of him. You, on the other hand, seem to want to whitewash these incidents of violence away as not applicable or comparable with your biased interpretations and meta-based excuses.

DCClark was stressed from nightmares because it directly linked with what’s going on with Tempus and it interferes him day and night. Don’t you think you can see DCSuperman the way you see SVLois here? Not even a bit? I don’t understand how you see SVLois’s nightmare as legitimate and yet dismiss DCClark’s nightmare as if it doesn’t matter, when everything was literally falling apart into chaos in front of his eyes by the guy who takes Lois away from him in his nightmares.

Wow, I really don't know where this comparison came from. Stressful nightmares justifies going to see a therapist, but it doesn't justify violence. Very big difference.

I’m just simply disagreeing with your take, Libby, just like you are disagreeing with mine. You referenced these moments from other shows because for you, his counterparts was doing the same thing in the similar situations. I disagree. Can I also ask you why are you trying to make other show(s)/comic storytelling looks worse than they possibly are (imo anyway), every time SVClark is written badly?

I'm saying they're worse because they are worse. Dean Cain's Clark didn't just dangle a human being from a highrise, he dropped him. Furthermore, I don't know if I like the idea of a Superman, in this case DCSuperman or comics!Superman, admitting that if anyone messes with Lois Lane or even kills her, his ethics will disappear and he will disregard the need to protect innocent life from the collateral damage of his wrath. Imagine for a moment, if Zod killed Lois in the finale, do you think Clark would be given a free pass if he spoke of his desire to kill Zod without any concern for his ethics and potential innocent casualties? Would that be acceptable to you?

More than anything, though, what makes those examples worse is the fact that those men were already Superman. Superman - the name, the costume, the symbol - means something. Whenever a Clark Kent steps out of the shadows and puts on the red, yellow, and blue he's accepting who he is and understands his place in the world. Even more important, he's a public face who can be held accountable. I'm not saying it isn't okay for these guys to make mistakes, because I absolutely do not expect them to be perfect, but being Superman means being held to a higher standard.

It also happens to me all the time when I think something doesn’t work in the comics, but I don’t have to point that out at the expense of Smallville every time I see one. But again, that’s just me.

I'm not discussing anyone's personal preferences for bad storylines or bad character moments in Smallville or throughout Superman media. If you don't like Clark Kent or Superman acting violently, that's your prerogative. I'm a relativist so I don't apply my every single one of my moral preferences onto characters who have no reason to share my values. Accordingly, I recognize that my morals and ethics developed over time just as I imagine Clark Kent is developing his morals and ethics. I expect to see a journey, in other words. I do not expect perfection.

Ultimately, I simply take issue with the claim that Superman never does X or Y. Why? Because he does do X or Y. It doesn't matter to me if it is controversial or not. Often times stories include controversial character moments in order to be thought-provoking and to propel the protagonist forwards. In short, it happens. Not liking something doesn't make it not true.

Zoom told me she didn’t do “reviews” for LnC but only wrote “Essay”. Where did you read her reviews on “That Old Gang of Mine”?

By all means, let's nitpick about the difference between essays and reviews. Yes, I was referring to the essay - the essay that did not mention the Dillinger incident at all. What a controversy?! The online hysteria and messageboard hubbub over that scene is truly overwhelming.

But anywho, what if Zoom did? Are you saying you can take her words (= her interpretation) but not mine? If you’ve read her Smallville reviews over the years, you do know that she has written one of the most critical reviews for Smallville ever since Pilot, don’t you? And those were the times when even the infamous-Neal (from SH) was giving 5/5 for the show!

What does Zoom's views on Smallville have to do with anything? You keep insisting "That Old Gang of Mine" was a controversial episode. I assumed one of the biggest Lois and Clark aficionados would have, I don't know, mentioned it in her essay on the episode. Since she didn't, it doesn't seem as though it was as much of a boilerplate for the LnC folks as you implied. Moreover, it's precisely because I know Zoom has been incredibly harsh towards Smallville that pushed me to seek out her views on the Dillinger scene. As a discerning critic of Superman media, I would imagine a controversial scene like that would warrant a line or two, you know? Yet, nothing, not a word. Curious.

You keep talking as if Clark is two different persons - young-Clark and older-Clark.

That's because the incarnations I'm referring to depict the future Superman's childhood and adolescence. These aren't different people, but rather different stages in a soon-to-be Superman's development.

To me, Clark Kent is someone who chooses to do right thing when to do wrong would be so easy for him, and his age has nothing to do with it.

Of course, yet Clark Kents young and old don't always do the right thing, do they? All of them make mistakes regardless of their age.

IMO there’s a reason that the Superman writers chose a Midwestern farm ("traditional American heartland") as the setting for his childhood and raised by the Kents with a strong moral compass – which is another thing that failed in this series, imo, but that’s for another thread.

If Smallville didn't even meet your high standards for the Kents and midwestern morals, then I'm not even sure why you continued to watch the Pilot after you pointed out how ruthlessly it was slammed in reviews by true Superman fans. If the show didn't get this crucial part right, according to you, I wonder why you are so shocked and dismayed at Clark's current violent behavior. It would be a natural evolution of his inadequate upbringing, right? So why bother anymore? This Clark was a failure in your eyes long before Season 9. I doubt anything TPTB do in the future or anything I say will persuade you otherwise.

So, DCClark has been light switched into Superman in your opinion. Are you saying what makes Superman is the costume then? Not the man under the suit?

No, DCClark was not lightswitched. That is not what I said at all. Dean Cain's version of the character did not experience the same things that Tom Welling's Clark has experienced. SVClark's journey has been more of a struggle fraught with pain and loss. He has more reason to fear coming out as an superhero, he has more reason to fear what could happen to his loved ones, and he has more reason to reject his alien origins than DCClark ever did. More than anything else, Clark has too often witnesses the futility of his efforts to do the right thing.

On this show, Clark is forever making mistakes, blaming himself for the mistakes of others, and generally wallowing in self-recrimination. This is especially true following the events of Doomsday, a catastrophic failure that led Clark to lack faith in himself, his methods, and human beings. This year, Clark is on a journey of personal redemption. He's lost his equilibrium and is trying to strike a balance between his identities. Can you honestly say that any other young Clark Kent had to cope with this kind of identity crisis and crisis of faith before donning the suit and showing his face to the world?

To answer your question about what makes a Clark Kent a Superman: It's not just the suit and flight. Absolutely not. It's about Clark Kent reaching a point in his life where he understands that the best way to save people is to be a public symbol. This, in my view, is what separates Superman from the majority of other superheroes. It is also what makes Smallville's Clark Kent still not ready to be Superman.

You’re accepting everything SVClark does or doesn’t do under the name of either “youth” or/and “Not yet called by the name Superman”. This is where I strongly disagree with you. For me, Clark is not Superman the second he can fly or don the suit, nor the moment he is called “Superman”. And I think it’s time for these writers to step up and write him as the show’s main focus instead of making him look like a secondary character. I no longer excuse PTB for their sucking skills of series’ direction & characterization of their protagonist. IMO, this Clark has suffered from it way too long. Enough already. JMO.

Actually, no, Clark really isn't Superman until he's Superman. There's a reason he is called Superman and not The Blur. The name means something and, in my opinion, it can't be applied to a character who is not yet willing or ready to embrace what that name means and represents. In other words, based on the canon of Smallville, Clark isn't ready to be Superman. If he were, he would be showing his face to the world, he would be wearing his primary colors, and he would be able to fly. I don't know who gave you the power to decide when Clark becomes Superman for all intents and purposes. It's subjective and arbitrary and completely out of step with Smallville show canon. Just because you may want Clark to be Superman and act like Superman doesn't it make it so and it certainly doesn't mean the character is to be evaluated against a standard he is not yet willing to accept. It would be the equivalent of judging Lois on Smallville against her current comic book continuity counterpart - a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist with years more experience under her belt. It simply does not work.

[Ken Chang]

Personally I think the women of Smallville are more violent than the boys. I mean, the series practically has cat fights every episode. The series rarely ever has Man VS Man fights. I think the writers have a cat fight fetish. And I think they've gone overboard with it and now have to tone down with the girl violence. A LOT!

[bigblueplanet]

You never cease to amaze me how fast you can reply to these long posts, Libby! Please don’t mind my super-slow spring pace….. Anywho, I hope I’m not sucking your joy out of laptop screen or anything. But as I know that no one is obliged to read the comment(s), nor respond to it if they don’t want to, I’ll discuss this topic a bit more.

Yes, normally Superman doesn't do such things, but since he's been shown to do them, I can't say that it isn't in character for Superman to have these types of out of character moments. For instance, normally I am a very shy person in my everyday interactions with people. However, once in a while, and in certain situations, I can actually be quite outgoing. Even though it isn't my typical behavior, it is still a part of me and how I act in a specific context given a certain set of variables. Therefore, when I look at Clark's behavior on Smallville in particular circumstances and see in it a reflection of what other Supermen have done, I can say that he is acting in a similar manner.

But your analogy of yourself being “quite ongoing in certain situations” doesn’t involve threatening & intimidating someone much weaker than you, does it? That’s my point. We all do mistakes, both when we’re younger and older. But I think many people (especially inspirational people such as Clark Kent) have their basic moral compass formed by the age of 18 - if not younger. For example, I might’ve intimidated my little cousin when I was 6 (“you borrow me your Barbie doll or else!!”), but when I get older, I wouldn’t act in a same way, even if she doesn’t want to borrow me her beautiful robe. Superman or not, young or old, doesn’t matter, Clark Kent of all people shouldn’t be written like this. IMO

Why would I criticize Clark destroying Zod's towers? I may not have been overjoyed about it, but I thought it was appropriate for the circumstances. When I saw the scene, I believed that Clark did not harm anyone in the process of taking down those towers, and I was right. He didn't. I was never informed about or shown that his taking down the towers caused psychological harm to the people of Metropolis. You've just assumed that. Since it was labeled an accident, Metropolitans would likely view it as unfortunate, but not as something for which they should be fearful.

It’s not only me who assumed this. This is from our conversation in Disciple thread:

Personally, I think it would have been a mistake for Clark to interfere with the tower's construction in any obvious way. To the public, these towers represent the future, eco-friendliness, jobs, and civic pride. Destroying them would arouse suspicion and fear, and could make Clark just as much of a target of Amanda Waller’s crusade against aliens and metahumans as Zod and the other Kandorians.

And it’s no longer just my assumption when I saw (onscreen) a couple of TV reporters running for their lives. My point here is, just because the show sugar-coated everything as if it was not a big deal, it didn’t give me a sugar-coated impression.

I can put myself in their place, and with the information the show gave me, I can answer most assertively that no, I would not be psychologically affected by what Clark did to Zod's towers. I would, however, have felt that way if Clark hadn't acted and I was killed or imprisoned by alien overlords.

But you’re not putting yourself in their place without the information the show gave us. They don’t know what we know. All they know is for unknown reasons, their eco towers suddenly blow up. Also there’s nothing appropriate about placing Clark in the same metaphorical position that caused one of the worst tragedy in the recent history. JMO. YMMV

Clark almost killed Tess? I never saw that.

Clark: Don’t worry, Tess. I’ll save your world. Isn’t that what you wanted?

*his eyes ablaze red*

So, in your view, what do you think he was about to do with his heat vision, had he not snapped out of it? And what do you think Tess was thinking at this moment? “OMG, he’s gonna kille me!” or “Yeah, warm me up hon, it’s chilly out here.” ?

Furthermore, I don't see the psychological effect off what Clark did to Tess as any different than DCSuperman telling Tempus that if he went near Lois he'd shown Tempus that his ethics would disappear or when he threatened Amanda Waller in that scan I provided previously.

Smallville has established Tess’s character as a woman who has had a childhood abuse. Now, I can understand if many viewers wouldn’t believe what she said but the point is Clark seemed to believe her in Turbulence - her experiences about “Daddy Dearest” who abused her with his overwhelming violence (broke her arm three times and shattered her ear drum). I find this writing decision very poor.

And I think DCSuperman telling “This is a warning -- stay away from her. Or I promise you you'll see my ethics disappear.”, is very similar to the Blur telling Zod: You go near Lois again, I will destroy you all." YMMV

I think it would be better too. I have not been arguing that it's okay for them to infuse Smallville with an abundance of these scenes because I'm just so apathetic about them. However, I will say that this is only the second time Clark has gone after Tess without the influence of a form of kryptonite, so two occasions in an entire season does not equate to the show portraying Clark as using this method as a "solution to every situation."

So when it comes to Smallville, it is just *only* two occasions in 17 episodes, while you referenced two scenes of LnC from its entire run (4 seasons) and called DCClark “ego-centric”. Something tells me that you’re not really a fan of DCClark/Superman. lol

And while we’re on the topic of “unnecessary violence”, how do you see two more scenes from [SPOILER]Charade, in which the Blur made the infamous 20 feet toss (x 1) and shoved a bad guy against the wall and knocked him out (x 1)? You know, with his super powers, there are other non-violent ways to take those guys down, aren’t there? [/SPOILER] I wanted to ask you because while I wasn’t disturbed by the DCSuperman’s action towards Tempus because of the context, you certainly did because of his “violent action”. But it really is not difficult to see one in Smallville, imo.

The entire basis of this season is Clark trying to "save Zod" as a solution to the threat he posed. It may have worked both times with Tess, however to critique Clark's entire characterization based on only those two instances in which Clark adopted a certain method of problem solving seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Actually I’m not based on Clark's entire characterization with these two scenes, but entire series. Not you? This version of Clark Kent always had a temper. If he can't control his temper at 22 (or 23 now?), how can you say he can at age of 27?

I don't disagree with this. Where I have always disagreed with you is that there isn't a purpose to showing Clark acting in this manner.

So let me get this straight. You told me that you believe the S:TAS scene with Dr. Hamilton was the only analogous scene to serve storytelling purposes, while there’s no purpose in Birthright’s Superman/Lex scene, nor in the LnC’s Superman/Tempus scene outside of the obvious show of force to obtain information (or intimidating). But there is purpose in Smallville Clark/Tess scenes? I hope you can tell me their purposes behind all those 20 feet throw-into-the-air toss Clark has made in this series, too.

That said, for this season, I hope it’ll be different. I highly doubt it, but I really hope you’re right on this one. I’m just not holding my breath because I see no purpose for so many storylines under Peterson/Souders names, ever since they took over in S8.

Of course it's the choice that matters. I'm simply saying that currently the show is exploring Clark's choice to embrace a more Kryptonian approach because of Clark's choice in Doomsday to rely less on his human taught morals and instincts because he had lost faith in his own humanity, believing it was it that had led him astray and prevented him from doing what needed to be done in order to be the hero he believed the world needed. See, right now, Clark is trying to figure out what kind of hero he is going to be. He doesn't know he's supposed to be Superman or what kind of hero Superman is.

Strange. I’m not seeing any of this being explored onscreen in this show…….

We know this, but Clark doesn't.

Doesn’t he?

"When you show yourself to the world, it will be a different age than ours, Clark - a silver age of heroism, that will start when they look up into the sky at you with hope for tomorrow. You will help everyone to embrace it."

Dr.Fate flat out told him that he will show himself to the world. Sure, he doesn’t know what he will be called but he does know what kind of hero he becomes, imo. That’s the heaviest anvil that dropped on his head. Overwhelming for him? I bet. But the point here is he knows “what kind” and that’s not a vigilante-like hero. IMO

So throughout the season we might see glimpses of him trying out these different approaches to heroism.

Throughout the season? You mean S10?

Since Clark isn't Superman yet, but only on the cusp of it, and is now currently exploring his Kryptonian side more than ever, my response to you is that is if Checkmate had been the final episode, then they would have lined Clark up to a more aggressive version of his mythos counterpart. However, as this is only part of the journey, the purpose seems to be showing that this is one way Clark could go, but since he'll ultimately choose another path--a more righteous path--it isn't who he really is or Superman really is, but rather it's a part of him that he has to learn to understand and control just like he had to do with his abilities when he first acquired them.

And the Doomsday wasn’t the Pilot, either. (On second thought, I feel like I’ve heard somewhere that PTB considers Doomsday as the Pilot. I could be wrong.) I’m talking about overall continuity since season 1. When Clark lift Tess by her neck in Kandor, one folk said, “if it was the standard 30 feet toss she'd be fine because even it’s ridiculous it still looks consistent for this Clark”. It rang true to me. Unfortunate? Yes, very. But then, he did it again in the most recent episode. Without this “balancing human and Kryptonian” theme (which is brand new), he has been already portrayed aggressive in this series. But it is one of the character continuity whether we’d like to admit or not, I guess. They could change this tendency any time if they wanted but continues to portray him in the same way. I’m glad you like this darker theme but I don’t think it’s doing any favor for the character as far as I’ve seen. Each to their own.

I still don't know why me saying that there are examples and precedent for a more violent Superman means that I like that version of the character.

No, I didn’t think you do. That’s why I insert “general you” before “you” in my sentence.

If these types of actions on Superman's part are so bothersome and so anomalous, I would expect it would be something that would be noted right away. Since this reviewer did not take note of it, as viewers of Checkmate immediately took note of what Clark did, I assume that either violence in cartoon or comic book form does not have as much of a visceral impact on consumers (which is disturbing), or I assume that it simply wasn't enough of an out of character moment for Superman.

Who are those “viewers” you are talking about? You do know that many viewers did not take note of it wrt Clark/Tess scene either, don’t you? Much like many viewers saw imagery of 9/11 from the last scene of Persuasion while many others did not. And this same reviewer did mention about Superman’s violent action on Action Comics #844 (part of “Last Son” arc) in which Superman broke into the government lab and shoved a man in charge (Sarge Steel) very roughly on the wall asking whereabouts the Kandorian boy (later revealed as Zod’s son).

“I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who didn't like Superman's assault on Sarge Steel, but I have no problem with it. Superman's an idealist, and in his mind the child must be pure and good. What the government is doing is undoubtedly the safer and more cautious route, but you can't blame Superman for charging in there to save one of his own.”

Maybe you can reference this panel next time. So that we have something new to talk about?

LnC writers wrote their Superman as not only having an entirely different upbringing, but the character they were writing was a fully developed Superman.

What do you mean by “a fully developed Superman”? What makes him “fully developed” in your view? When he chose the right suit and takes his glasses off? If you recall, for the first part of the Pilot, DCClark didn’t have a suit (he flied back to Smallville in a business suit!), but because he immediately realized that saving people in broad daylight & plain sight in a big city like Metropolis is problematic, he had to come up with the costume and disguise (THE suspension of disbelief aka no glasses = Superman). In the third episode his challenge towards Lex backfired him and he even decided to hang up his cape temporarily.

To me, the season 1 of LnC is much like Superman in “Birthright”, or Superman in “Superman Kryptonite (Darwin Cooke)” or first couple of issues of “The Man Of Steel (John Byrne)”. They are still figuring out how to be both Superman and Clark Kent-as-a-reporter at the same time.

We don't know how DCSuperman came to adopt the methods he adopted or if he faltered on his evolutionary journey (however long and complicated it may have been). We're simply left to assume that he did learn those lessons; yet even as an adult he had weak moments like in "That Old Gang of Mine" and "Meet John Doe." So the heart of the character matters in the context of comparing one grown Superman to another, but given that Clark is still on the way to fulfilling that destiny, his heart may be in a different place at present.

As I wrote earlier, if this Clark can’t control his temper at the age of 23, it’s hard to imagine the end point would still be the same. You remember “Vatman”? The LnC’s Bizzaro episode? The clone-imposter Superman throws a thug into the air, much like Clark would often do in Smallville. Here is THLois’s reaction when she saw it.

LOIS: Clark, we have to talk. There's something wrong with Superman! I watched him toss this robbery suspect into a police van from twenty feet away. Knocked the guy out cold. Superman wouldn't do that.

And THLois is right. DCSuperman wouldn’t do that. On the other hand, SVLois doesn’t even raise an eyebrow when she saw the Blur [SPOILER]toss a thug into the air and knocked out cold in Charade[/SPOILER]. I suppose it’s now known that it’s something the Blur would do.

In fact, we have been told explicitly that since he is experiencing an "identity crisis" of a sort, that his heart is torn between the two sides of himself and what kind of person and hero he wants to be and the world needs him to be.

Hmm. I don’t like the sound of it. I think it’s time for me to “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”.

You should provide proof when you make claims about author's intent and when suggest certain violent acts of Superman in other media were on the receiving end of a significant amount of negative fan reaction. An interpretation of actual scenes, however, does not require proof.

First, I didn’t claim my take is author’s intent and second, I don’t understand why you keep talking about a fan reaction when yourself reiterate that it doesn’t bother you.

I reiterate, if you are going to make claims about fan reaction, I'm not just going to believe you. You can have an opinion about what a scene means in a comic or a TV show, but you cannot have an opinion about fan reaction.

Theoretically speaking, you don’t have to believe anything what anyone say. The first thing my macrobiotic teacher said in our first class is; “Do not believe what I say. Or any book says, including my books.” LOL!

But I guess what you are saying here is, we CAN have an opinion about fan reaction but we cannot talk about it on this forum. Did I get your message right? Fair enough. A fan reaction is NOT the reason I keep having this conversation with you anyway. So, I’m more than happy to drop it from our discussion.

The fallout of Superman's violent action with Luthor, which parallels Clark's actions with Tess, is not the reason for that headline, according to the comic. The reason for that headline was because Superman trespassed on government property. The scene showed that Superman went in there to get answers about Krypton and he got them. He now carries that knowledge with him, and thus did not leave empty handed. Were there other effects of his actions? Yes. However, the comic shows that Clark acquired information he wanted from Luthor and that the indictment of him as an attacker was because of his actions toward the property in Luthor was located, and not specifically on Luthor himself. Superman would have been smeared in the press whether he had choked Lex or not, in other words. It was a set up that only needed Superman to flew into the area, he played into Luthor's hands. Hence the comic does not communicate, IMO, that Superman's use of violence was unproductive, wrong, or that Superman learned not to do such a thing again. YMMV.

I restate. I see “Superman Attacks” as one of the fallouts. Lex was prepared and Superman walks right into his trap. I’d say it would’ve paralleled Clark destroying Zod towers, had the writers explore consequences of his action and the headline of the paper was “Worst Explosion of Decade!” instead of “Freak Accident”. (If that was the case, then, I’d agree there was a story purpose.)

But, this scene in Birthright does not parallel Clark/Tess scene AT ALL. IMO

Superman got the information because Lex chose to give him. It wasn’t “give me this or else” situation like Clark/Tess scene was. Lex, in this scene, never – even for a second – thought Superman would vaporize him with his heat vision, he KNOWS Superman wouldn’t hurt him. Both Lex and Superman’s mannerism & facial expression are very telling in these panels. Who is winning in this scene? Not Superman. There is nothing Lex wasn’t going to tell him, hadn’t Superman gone rough on him. It’s all well calculated on Lex’s part. What was shocking for Superman in this confrontation as much as the overwhelming information wrt his lost world was, how far Lex is willing to go just to destroy him. And how much Lex come to hate him and determined to do anything it takes to rip Superman & his symbol apart. Lex wasn’t talking because he was afraid of Superman’s intimidation (unlike Tess) he was gloating what he has in his sleeves to destroy Superman. Lex in this scene is totally in character, tormenting Superman psychologically. Not vice versa. JMO

And who is tormenting who in the Clark/Tess scene? Clark does. Very opposite to Superman/Lex scene in my eyes. YMMV

You never brought it up initially, so you talking about it and our continued discussion of it is more about us analyzing Superman's evident use of violence in certain situations, and not evidence that the incident itself was controversial at the time.

Exactly. This is why I’m still here.

Forgive me, but I followed the linked post which this comment is a response to, and it's from something I said back in November. I don't even understand your reason for quoting it or the accusations you're throwing at me for dismissing your opinions based on the part of this very old post you bolded.

No. My comment wrt “dismissing my opinion” is towards this remark you made:

(b) as if that matters in the context of the discussion we are having.

This is the second thread in row that you dismissed my comment as if it has nothing to do with the subject at our hand. It does to me. No matter how you think otherwise. And I explained you (also in another thread) why I’m saying what I’m saying – including why I value “fan reaction” - of which “how many” part really does not matter. Because maybe - emphasize on “maybe”- one letter can sometimes change the show for better, can’t it? I always hope fans - many, if possible - react for bad writing (especially for bad characterization).

Just to clarify, I couldn’t care less if you believe whether or not there’s controversy in other media, nor anything about what I say wrt “fan reaction”. That’s noting to do with the reason that I engaged with this discussion in the first place.

This is the original quote from November 11, 2009 you quoted. The part you cut out and highlighted in the post of yours I'm responding to now is in red:

And when I read you comment – both cut-out-version and full-version - it didn’t sound to me as a question at all and I thought you were echoing my sentiment on the matter. After all, like you said, it wasn’t me who brought it up initially. You did. Twice, in different threads. And what does November 11, 2009 (yes, the date) has anything to do with this discussion? “That Old Gang of Mine” aired in 1994. And yet, you still remember it as a shockingly violent scene.

So now you're accusing me of choosing to see things a certain way? I had come to believe you thought this kind of accusation was offensive and uncalled for given our discussion about the ambiguity of Lois' knowledge of Zod's position of CEO of RAO in Conspiracy. I stand corrected.

What is offensive and uncalled for, IMO, is to accuse your fellow member for having a “negative bias” and goes as far to post a reference from a psychology book (which has nothing to do with the show, nor the topic) like you did in the above post you mentioned. You said you’re a counselor, but I’m not here to be psychoanalyzed by you or anyone else. I’m here to discuss about the show. And I was discussing about the show there as well.

And what I’m doing now is, pointing out the contrast between your assessments wrt other mediums in comparison to arguments you made about Smallville. When I feel there’re contradictions in your viewpoints, it makes me wonder what are the differences between two contexts from your POV, especially since we’ve been discussing a lot lately (since Disciple). The quotes I brought here are all from the responses/feedbacks that you gave directly to me in response to my reviews & posts, so naturally I remember what you said.

All these talks make our discussion veer away from the topic at hand. If something what I said still doesn’t make sense to you, I’d appreciate if you could take it to the visitor’s message board or PM. Thank you.

I disagree that Tempus changing his strategy can be directly linked to what Superman did to him. I thought the episode conveyed that it was his intention to do that all along. He even says at the beginning of the episode (pre-altercation) that this was his objective: "Soon I'll have everything I want: World conquest, and as a bonus--the destruction of Superman..."

When did Tempus say that?

I re-watched the episode recently but I still see that his strategy was to use Superman as his own slave just like anyone else on Earth. Tempus couldn’t mind-control Superman so he had to make him obey by other means. He was jeopardizing 1) his secret identity, 2) Lois’s life along with everyone else, 3) every single right of Superman being Superman, as his end of bargain.

This is the scene where Tempus had a conversation with Andrus (a peacemaker who came to take Tempus into custody from the future- but now he is captured by Tempus instead) right before he sends mind-control wave towards Lois for driving off a cliff.

Andrus : You’re a true force for evil, Tempus.
Tempus: You’re just saying that because I’ve got you tied up to a chair and I’m about to plunge the world into 1,000 years of darkness.
Andrus: You won’t get away with this. Men of greater character will conspire to stop you.
Tempus: Or not. [Shows him the article that says “Superman Grounded”]
Andrus: If you don’t allow Superman to do his good work, Utopia will never come about.
Tempus: But I’m creating new Utopia, Andrus. One that suits my own unique sensibilities.
Andrus: Great men aren’t so easily neutralized, Tempus.
Tempus: You know…, you’re right. History has taught us nothing else, it’s taught us this: Never invade Russia and don’t underestimate the power of Superman’s disgusting goodness. He’ll need a little more convincing to cooperate fully. And I know just where to hit him hardest…… for maximum effect.

[takes his mind-control device and command] This one goes to Lois Lane……..

Then, mind-controlled-THLois almost drives off from a cliff. Superman saves her and then comes to confront Tempus. (= the scene you referenced.)

Tempus’s plan wasn’t to destroy Superman in the beginning, but to make him cooperate, according to this scene and the scene I referenced earlier where Tempus made a national-wide speech right after he was elected as the President.

It's a rhetorical question. I was just wondering what the thought process was that led you to your conclusion since I see Tess and Tempus as being equally formidable foes.

I think the show is shedding completely different light on Tess. Very different from how LnC portrayed Tempus. He was a fan favorite formidable foe but there was nothing redeemable, nor sympathetic about him. Is it only me who is having this feeling that Tess might well end up as a martyr? I’ll see.

Did Clark have any substantive evidence Tess was behind the murders in Injustice? Knowing a villain has done something villainous doesn't necessarily equate to having the capability of bringing said villain to justice.

A device Emil found on the Livewire and Eva? Tess had the remote with her in the mansion, right before Clark arrived. With Clark’s powers, he could search clues/evidences throughout entire mansion in a couple of minutes. The writers just don’t explore any. Not even show us Clark trying something.

I'm not convinced there is much he could do about it, honestly. Superman doesn't seem to be able to bring Lex Luthor to justice in the comics despite what he knows he's capable of and the crimes he has committed. Isn't Tess really just a Lady Lex, after all?

Does Tess being “Lady Lex” have some effect on the Clark/Tess scene, you think? Maybe to some people….. But personally I don’t see Tess being Lady Lex. She seems to be like any other *original* character that Smallville created who is flip-flopping any way and any direction the writers want at the time. But that’s just how I see her.

She's walking free because she's Tess Mercer. She's powerful and well-connected. As we saw in Upgrade, she knows how to make sure that every mess is cleaned up.

And Tempus was powerful and super-well-connected (thanks to his mind-control devise), he knew how to make sure that every mess is cleaned up but nevertheless he was defeated for good in the next episode “Lois and Clarks”. But I do understand that Smallville has a different season-long formula.

Clark treats Tess the same way Superman treats Lex in the comics and in the first season of Lois and Clark. He recognizes her as a dangerous threat, but also acknowledges there is very little he can do to stop her.

My question was about whether or not it gives you a sense of “immediate & intense danger” at the moment Clark took Tess on the ledge in Checkmate.

Isn't Chloe doing this? In Rabid, Chloe hacked into Tess' mansion security video and she also recruited Stuart in Crossfire. On this show, Clark seems to delegate the responsibility for surveillance to Chloe.

Chloe hacked into Tess’s mansion to see what’s happened to Tess after Clark informed her that she has been infected with some kind virus in Rabid. Chloe was busy tracking Oliver and the rest of the League back then, remember? Not because of investigating Tess’s dubious plans.

In Crossfire, Chloe recruited Stuart because, “he has done some pretty heavyweight hacking and we could do a lot with that kind of leverage”. Come to think of it, this is another story thread which is completely dropped, isn’t it? We don’t know what he was doing for Chloe. She said Stuart is some sort of “insider” but do we know what he has been doing for Chloe? Did he let the watchtower know when Tess kidnapped a woman from the hospital? It doesn’t look like...

Oh, and the journalism angle would be a little difficult, don't you think? You know with Tess being his boss and everything.

Why difficult? JSLex became an owner of the Daily Planet but does that stop Perry or Jimmy or DCClark from investigating? Nah.

I think you have an extremely optimistic view of what hacking and superpowers can accomplish.

Why? Chloe’s hacking ability in this show seems more powerful than Harry Potter’s Elder Wand to me.

There's really not much he can do, in my opinion, other than continue monitoring Tess via whatever Chloe is doing at the Watchtower since the first few episodes of the season. He can't kill her (obviously), he can't put her in jail because I'm sure she has an army of lawyers who can get any suit against her dismissed, he can't use the power of the press because she owns the press, and he can't out Checkmate because Checkmate is the government (a government group that is anti-alien no less). Clark doesn't have many, if any, options, IMO.

There’s always something he can do, imo, if the writers craft the story that way. These writers just don’t. Either because of the lack of creativity or lack of respect for the protagonist, I don’t know. They just don’t bother making such a story around him. JMO

My "violence is violence" point of view is my own personal belief system. I don't judge everything based on perspective because I understand the validity of different viewpoints. In short, I'm a relativist. Thus I interpret the show based on established conventions for the genre and character. I ask myself: Is this something Superman would do? From his point of view, is it justified? I don't ask myself: Is Superman doing something I would do? From my point of view, is it justified?

You said earlier that my quote from the editor of “Psychology of Superheroes” is not relevant because you have to deal with this version of Clark Kent. So when you ask yourself: “Is this something Superman would do? From his point of view, is it justified?”, which version of Superman you’re thinking of? Isn’t it the Superman whom you’ve never seen before but this Smallville’s version of Superman?

I was meaning to ask you. What is your favorite Superman story outside of Smallville? (in any medium) If you don’t mind me asking?

In addition, my "violence is violence" point of view does not excuse violence or make it acceptable. That's a wild misreading of my opinion. My personal opinion is that violence is unacceptable, but when I'm watching a television show with characters who are not me, who have their own distinct set of formative life experiences, and who have iconic counterparts against whom I can establish a standard of behavior, I judge them based on their history, their morals, and their canon standards.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. Are you saying you judge DCSuperman for much less (than something SVClark would do) because of his moral and his canon standard? Does this mean, you set your bar low for SVClark and therefore you’re very forgiving when it comes to SVClark?

Consequently, Superman and Clark is only unnecessarily violent when he goes against established character norms. Yet, it is also in character for Superman and Clark to occasionally make mistakes and to let emotions overrule judgment. In other words, it is an established character norm for Superman or Clark to occasionally screw up. When Superman or Clark is violent, he is therefore being unequivocally violent. His violence is not excusable, but it is an in character moment. It is something Superman or Clark did to address a crisis or deal with an emotion. Just because unnecessary violence is an anomaly doesn't make it an act that is not associated with the character of Superman. It may be a bad character moment for Superman, but it isn't out of character.

Just to clarify one more time. I’m not disagreeing with the fact that Superman/Clark screw up. He does screw up, no matter which era of Superman or who is writing it. What I am disagreeing, however, is I see a significant difference between Clark/Tess scene compare to Birthright or DCSuperman/Tempus scene that you referenced. I think the scene that I mentioned from the Last Son arc was more close to the Clark/Tess scene, but the one from Kandor, imo.

A series like Lois and Clark is primarily composed of standalone episodes. Smallville works with long-term acts. The consequences for Clark's actions against Tess did not manifest themselves until Upgrade. Because Clark continued to act violent towards Tess and rejected her without any sympathy, Tess expedited her Metallo project and turned Zod against Clark.

I see there’s a big difference with villain’s motivation. It looks like a typical “possible-ally (from her POV anyway) turns into enemy because of betrayal” plot to me (like Ephialtes to Leonidas) and the scaring thing is we haven’t seen the end of it. With the Tess/Chloe plot going on right now, I’m not sure if it’ll end up good for Clark in the end. I’ll see.

Wow, I really don't know where this comparison came from. Stressful nightmares justifies going to see a therapist, but it doesn't justify violence. Very big difference.

This comparison comes from your comment below.

Furthermore, I don't quite see why it matters that [DC]Clark was stressed from nightmares.

Why you don’t see the nightmares matters when it comes to DCClark, while you speak of your counseling experiences from real life to justify SVLois’s sex daydream? Isn’t “Losing Lois” the common theme for all Clarks that he fears the most? Doesn’t SVClark become much more edgy whenever his loved ones (especially Lana during S1 to S8, and now Lois) was put in danger?

I'm saying they're worse because they are worse. Dean Cain's Clark didn't just dangle a human being from a highrise, he dropped him.

And yet, the episode that includes this scene still remains as your one of the favorite episodes of the series. It must be something in it that outweighed your initial negative reaction, isn’t it? For the record, “That Old Gang of Mine” was one of the weakest episode of the season (if not the series) for me and not only because of this scene in question.

Furthermore, I don't know if I like the idea of a Superman, in this case DCSuperman or comics!Superman, admitting that if anyone messes with Lois Lane or even kills her, his ethics will disappear

Isn’t this scene very similar to Clark’s reaction where he thought Zod approached Lois in order to send him a message? And here is what you had to say about this.
"You go near Lois again, I will destroy you all."

Destroy can mean a lot of things. It could mean that Clark puts the Kandorians on the radar of government officials, for example. Doing something of that sort is not outside the realm of possibilities in terms of actions Clark can take. I think it was good for Clark to make a strong statement about boundaries to Zod. Zod was turning on the waterworks to give the impression of softness and to draw sympathy whereas Clark was assertive to give the impression of strength. Zod was using what he believed would get through to Clark -- human emotions -- and Clark was using what he believed would get through to Zod -- Kryptonian coldness and resolve.

So, isn’t it good for DCSuperman to make a strong statement about the boundaries, too? Especially THLois was almost killed by Tempus here. Not just having Tempus visiting her in the hospital with the flowers.

Also Clark didn’t say I’ll destroy you (= Zod). He said, I’ll destroy you all. This indicates all Kandorians (or at least Zod’s loyal followers, I assume.) Isn’t it much worse? That he threatened to destroy not only Zod who is responsible for his own action (= for approaching Lois behind Clark’s back) but also the others who might/might not know their leader’s action?

That said, I do understand where SVClark is coming from in this scene. As I understand where DCSuperman is coming from in his scene. I just don’t understand why you cannot see DCSuperman’s line in the same way you saw with the Blur’s.

and he will disregard the need to protect innocent life from the collateral damage of his wrath.

How you come to reach this conclusion? Doesn’t “my ethics go away” means he makes sure to put Tempus away for good? For no other than the reason that he would do so in order to protect innocent life from collateral damage?

Imagine for a moment, if Zod killed Lois in the finale, do you think Clark would be given a free pass if he spoke of his desire to kill Zod without any concern for his ethics and potential innocent casualties? Would that be acceptable to you?

Why do I have to imagine this? You analogy doesn’t make sense to me since I don’t share the same view as you do wrt DCSuperman telling Tempus the line in question.

More than anything, though, what makes those examples worse is the fact that those men were already Superman. Superman - the name, the costume, the symbol - means something. Whenever a Clark Kent steps out of the shadows and puts on the red, yellow, and blue he's accepting who he is and understands his place in the world.

Do you remember the letter Clark wrote in Doomsday? The very Supermanly letter? – the name, the costume doesn’t matter because people of Metropolis seem to accept his presence as a symbol of hope? But we really don’t know, aren’t we? How the Blur is seen by the people in general? But again, according to Clark in Idol, he seems to believe that he has earned the trust.

Even more important, he's a public face who can be held accountable. I'm not saying it isn't okay for these guys to make mistakes, because I absolutely do not expect them to be perfect, but being Superman means being held to a higher standard.

And for me, being Clark Kent means being held to a higher standard as well.

Ultimately, I simply take issue with the claim that Superman never does X or Y because he does do X or Y. It doesn't matter to me if it is controversial or not. Often times stories include controversial character moments in order to be thought-provoking and to propel the protagonist forwards. In short, it happens. Not liking something doesn't make it not true.

True. But here we’re talking about particular references. If you post the reference from Golden Age comics where Superman throws mortal men out of the window and shout, “to the death!”, I wouldn’t be arguing over this topic with you by now.

By all means, let's nitpick about the difference between essays and reviews. Yes, I was referring to the essay - the essay that did not mention the Dillinger incident at all. What a controversy?! The online hysteria and messageboard hubbub over that scene is truly overwhelming.

I’d admit if I were doing nitpick. This is not. If you’ve read both her reviews (for SV) and essays, you would see definitive difference between the two. Zoom is doing those essays as requests for fellow LnC fans who were having an upcoming birthday, having an anniversary, or for some who just wanted to feel better. That’s why she mainly focuses on the Lois & Clark aspects of love in them. Not on villains, not on the special effects, and especially not on the flaws of the episode because her LnC essays are supposed to be presents.

What does Zoom's views on Smallville have to do with anything?

You mentions about her first, not me. Also you talk about her not mentioning this scene in question as if you’d take her words if you see one. Moreover, recently I saw you quoted a part of her Pandora review on this forum in order to make your point. It looks like you value her words and her interpretations of the Smallville episode. So I wanted to know whether you agree or not with her overview wrt Smallville and this version of Clark Kent. Because she also often pointed out about his unnecessary violence in her reviews and she also share my view that his age is not excusable.

You keep insisting "That Old Gang of Mine" was a controversial episode. I assumed one of the biggest Lois and Clark aficionados would have, I don't know, mentioned it in her essay on the episode. Since she didn't, it doesn't seem as though it was as much of a boilerplate for the LnC folks as you implied. Moreover, it's precisely because I know Zoom has been incredibly harsh towards Smallville that pushed me to seek out her views on the Dillinger scene. As a discerning critic of Superman media, I would imagine a controversial scene like that would warrant a line or two, you know? Yet, nothing, not a word. Curious.

I don’t know if you’ve read it, but Zoom talked about the reaction of fans regarding the humans physics aspect of the Dillinger’s scene in her forum. She also thinks that the writers seemed to listen and change the writing afterwards. That’s one aspect which seemingly has been controversial if fans reaction towards the scene has changed anything about the show – or gave its fans this impression that they did, imo. YMMV But I didn’t ask her about the “proof” like you asked me and she also talked about “fan reaction” which, in your opinion, we have no right to talk about it even if that’s our own impression. So you can either take her words or leave it on this. It’s up to you.

Of course, yet Clark Kents young and old don't always do the right thing, do they? All of them make mistakes regardless of their age.

Yes. But quite honestly I’ve never seen him psychologically torturing a non-armed/non-powered woman to extract information in any medium before. Have you?
I’ve been talking about this with many folks in and out of SV fandom lately and as you can also see in this very thread, I think Tess being a woman IS part of the problem. The scene was already bad as it is but the fact that she is a woman makes the scene even worth. I wonder if any writer (in all era) ever went there.

If Smallville didn't even meet your high standards for the Kents and midwestern morals, then I'm not even sure why you continued to watch the Pilot after you pointed out how ruthlessly it was slammed in reviews by true Superman fans.

What is the definition of “true Superman fans”? I never get this term. Anyway, the answer to this question is easy. I watch anything Superman-related. If this show was called “Smallcity” with the same cast and same storylines (minus Superman terms and obvious Superman Mythos-like aspects), I wouldn’t have even bothered to watch the Pilot.

If the show didn't get this crucial part right, according to you, I wonder why you are so shocked and dismayed at Clark's current violent behavior. It would be a natural evolution of his inadequate upbringing, right? So why bother anymore? This Clark was a failure in your eyes long before Season 9. I doubt anything TPTB do in the future or anything I say will persuade you otherwise.

Did I say somewhere that I’m shocked? No. I am pissed off. At the writers.
And same answer as above. I still bother because this Clark Kent is supposed to become Superman.

No, DCClark was not lightswitched. That is not what I said at all. Dean Cain's version of the character did not experience the same things that Tom Welling's Clark has experienced.

Okay.

SVClark's journey has been more of a struggle fraught with pain and loss. He has more reason to fear coming out as a superhero, he has more reason to fear what could happen to his loved ones, and he has more reason to reject his alien origins than DCClark ever did. More than anything else, Clark has too often witnesses the futility of his efforts to do the right thing. On this show, Clark is forever making mistakes, blaming himself for the mistakes of others, and generally wallowing in self-recrimination.

No kidding.

This is especially true following the events of Doomsday, a catastrophic failure that led Clark to lack faith in himself, his methods, and human beings. This year, Clark is on a journey of personal redemption. He's lost his equilibrium and is trying to strike a balance between his identities.

“Redemption” even before his debut as Superman. I’m not sure if I have to be amused by this idea or terrified. But anyway, you seem to be enjoying this storyline so I don't want to rain on your parade. I’ll say no more……. about the future storyline, that is.

To answer your question about what makes a Clark Kent a Superman: It's not just the suit and flight. Absolutely not. It's about Clark Kent reaching a point in his life where he understands that the best way to save people is to be a public symbol. This, in my view, is what separates Superman from the majority of other superheroes. It is also what makes Smallville's Clark Kent still not ready to be Superman.

He is not ready because there is another season. jmho

Actually, no, Clark really isn't Superman until he's Superman. There's a reason he is called Superman and not The Blur. The name means something and, in my opinion, it can't be applied to a character who is not yet willing or ready to embrace what that name means and represents. In other words, based on the canon of Smallville, Clark isn't ready to be Superman. If he were, he would be showing his face to the world, he would be wearing his primary colors, and he would be able to fly.

Well, I didn’t decide any particular time or moment that he becomes Superman. On the contrary, I think we shouldn’t be able to pinpoint that moment. Like……. “There!!! In the series finale at 39:12, he finally becomes Superman!!!”. ..... You know what I mean?

There’re no character consistency in this show, he’s seemingly heading the right direction until another season is secured, then, completely change the direction from wherever he was heading, since……. S5, I think. We all want best for Clark, and some thinks that these writers are doing great job for him and some others (such as myself) thinks their writings are too often detriment to the character. I understand it is all subjective.

I don't know who gave you the power to decide when Clark becomes Superman for all intents and purposes.

Is this a rhetorical question again? So here is one from me. Who gave you the power to criticize the fan for wanting the best for the character they love? Loving anything & everything about the show is not the only way to love the character. JMO. YMMV

.

[ginevrakent]

Tomo, I'm done discussing this issue with you. It's been great, but it's time to move on. We clearly will never see eye to eye on this issue, and I think it's best to just let it be.

[Chloe is Smallville]

Seeing the poll results, I'm really infuriated at how just as many people can be okay with violence towards women.

[bigblueplanet]

Tomo, I'm done discussing this issue with you. It's been great, but it's time to move on. We clearly will never see eye to eye on this issue, and I think it's best to just let it be.

Yep, I agree. It’s time to discuss about another reference. (j/k) In all seriousness, I’m happy that both our interpretations have been presented here and now they’re more than just an image or a scene.

And who knows? We might’ve made one or two people want to read Birthright, just to see what we’ve been so passionately talking about in our super-long posts! LOL

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

.

[Simba_Muffy]

Tess has shot a man and killed two. She's ruthless.

A villian is a villian. If don't want to get hurt, then don't choose to be a bad guy/gal.

[BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow]

Seeing the poll results, I'm really infuriated at how just as many people can be okay with violence towards women.

And I'm baffled this discussion turned into a violence against women- thread. Seriously, watch the show in it's context. Tess got what was coming to her.