Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chloe's Exit

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Didn't they start implementing the character of Cloe Sullivan into the comics? Quite the paradox that must be for all you 'LIVE by the comics and HATE Smalleville' fellas. Lol

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Reality-check
      Didn't they start implementing the character of Cloe Sullivan into the comics? Quite the paradox that must be for all you 'LIVE by the comics and HATE Smalleville' fellas. Lol
      Yeah they did but although she looks like chloe she's not the same person. She's jimmy's age and from smallville but didnt grow up with clark or know about his powers.

      Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FlyingHigh
        In my opinion Al/Miles goal was to show a Clark who did not want to become a superhero, or have powers, or be in any way out of the ordinary (except possibly as a high-school quarterback).

        It is also my opinion that they would have written him as resisting his destiny regardless of whether Chloe was written into or kept on in the series. If she had died at the end of season 1, as Original Character Whitney did, I think Clark would still have been written as the whiney mopster who put Lana above all and who was constantly taking one step forward and two steps back.

        The fact that they didn't write Clark as being capable of solving all problems on his own from either the Pilot or the moment that Jonathan died (depending on when you think he should have started to embrace his destiny as a hero) had, again in my opinion, NOTHING to do with Chloe's presence on the show. It is my firm belief that had Chloe not existed (if, for instance, not-so-Almighty DC had decreed
        that Clark could only have two friends in high school and
        their names had to be "Pete Ross" and "Lana Lang"), the
        role of "hero

        inspirer" would have certainly gone to Lana. And this is because it is my firm belief that it would never have occurred to Al/Miles to write Clark as an independent, brilliant, proactive (fill in your favorite adjective for Superman that SV!Clark Kent does not embody) hero-from-the-get-go kind of guy.

        It's just not the story they wanted to tell.*

        Plus, after all the other horrors Al/Miles visited upon fans (Witch!Lana, Fake!Baby, Exploding!Baby, Secrets-and-Lies, the Veritas retcon, etc., etc.), does anyone really think the only thing standing in the way of a quality story featuring character-driven plot development that showed Clark following a believable progression from small-town farmboy to Superman is Chloe?



        *again, in my opinion
        I can agree with some of what you said. But Clark definatly WAS a hero-from-the-get-go, granted in later seasons started to be not so proactive. And it is a very believable journey to becoming Superman, doesn't mean YOU have to like it, it's annoyed the hell out of me @ times yes. But put yourself in his shoes, literally and emotionally (not just from a high-horse superman know it all judgmental outsider standpoint) realistically you can't fully do that, and it shows by the way you judge. And these 'horrors' you speak of FASCINATED me and kept me glued season after season. It's just like how people judge the x-men movies and others such, just because it doesn't follow the comics exactly it's deemed a HORRIBLE movie/show. No they are great movies/shows that have altered the comics story. And some would say they like the new takes better and don't necicarily like the comic or older movie/show versions. does that mean that opinion is absolute and true? Not at all. So while I don't always agree with how Clark acts and the decisions he makes, when I look back @ myself @ those ages, I did A LOT of things I now think to be RIIIIDICULOUS. and I wasn't even on the long stressful road to becoming Superman. I'm in no way saying Smalleville is perfect, but is too often over criticized in a very biast way (not pointing fingers at the OP just ellaborating my point)

        ----- Added 5 Minutes later -----

        Originally posted by Superboy-Prime
        Yeah they did but although she looks like chloe she's not the same person. She's jimmy's age and from smallville but didnt grow up with clark or know about his powers.

        Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
        Ah so I had heard right. Well they must have had some love for the smallville character to implement her at all, so that's nice. Thankz for the info!
        Last edited by Reality-check; 03-27-2011, 03:04 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FlyingHigh
          In my opinion Al/Miles goal was to show a Clark who did not want to become a superhero, or have powers, or be in any way out of the ordinary (except possibly as a high-school quarterback).

          It is also my opinion that they would have written him as resisting his destiny regardless of whether Chloe was written into or kept on in the series. If she had died at the end of season 1, as Original Character Whitney did, I think Clark would still have been written as the whiney mopster who put Lana above all and who was constantly taking one step forward and two steps back.

          The fact that they didn't write Clark as being capable of solving all problems on his own from either the Pilot or the moment that Jonathan died (depending on when you think he should have started to embrace his destiny as a hero) had, again in my opinion, NOTHING to do with Chloe's presence on the show. It is my firm belief that had Chloe not existed (if, for instance, not-so-Almighty DC had decreed that Clark could only have two friends in high school and their names had to be "Pete Ross" and "Lana Lang"), the role of "hero inspirer" would have certainly gone to Lana. And this is because it is my firm belief that it would never have occurred to Al/Miles to write Clark as an independent, brilliant, proactive (fill in your favorite adjective for Superman that SV!Clark Kent does not embody) hero-from-the-get-go kind of guy.

          It's just not the story they wanted to tell.*

          Plus, after all the other horrors Al/Miles visited upon fans (Witch!Lana, Fake!Baby, Exploding!Baby, Secrets-and-Lies, the Veritas retcon, etc., etc.), does anyone really think the only thing standing in the way of a quality story featuring character-driven plot development that showed Clark following a believable progression from small-town farmboy to Superman is Chloe?



          *again, in my opinion
          Hey there, it's been a while.

          I agree with a lot of what you said, but to be brief, my problem has always been the means in which many things have been done by on this show. I know that the writing of Chloe is not 100% to blame, but if there was one character that I could single out for having the biggest negative impact on this series, I'd choose Chloe without hesitation, since she's a non-canon character. Other than that, I'd say AI Jor-El, the early introduction of Lois, and then Lana, but I know that it always starts with the writing staff - a staff that doesn't seem to care too much about Clark and the others IMO.

          I'm not as passionate on this subject as I was a few months ago, but I still stand by my opinion that TPTB hijacked this series through Chloe Sullivan starting around Seasons 4-5. Once all of the "Superman" writers and staff left the show around Seasons 3-4, the show was never the same after that, and TPTB seemed to channel their creative energies more into the writing of Chloe. It's no coincidence that so many characters that were canon or relevant to Clark's story were written out and only Chloe remained in the end. Just look at this latest arc, and it's clear that the writers wanted to emphasize that Chloe has been nearly as important to this series as Clark's been. She gets to walk away with a big smile on her face while all of the other characters got the bad end of the deal. That's where my main issue's always been. Why does Chloe get all of this special treatment, while Lana and the others are mistreated or worse? The answer is simply that TPTB own the rights to her character.

          I wouldn't have so much of a problem with the writing of Chloe if the other characters were treated with just as much respect by the writers. It's clear to me that the writer's have had a bias towards Chloe in regards to Clark and everyone else. I just don't think that it's fair that a series was given life only through Clark Kent and many other characters, but the non-canon character gets the special treatment and the happy ending while the rest were either killed off or turned into something ridiculous. Even some of the show canon was revised and retconned to accommodate Chloe's return and exit.

          Anyway, there is a lot that could be said about this topic, but I'll stop myself there before I get carried away. All that I know is that Chloe became a major character on this series, and I don't agree at all with how it was done, but it is what it is.

          JMO
          Last edited by HopeforTomorrow; 03-28-2011, 05:32 PM.

          Comment


          • Chloe And Ollie Will Own Star City.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by indy1jones2
              Chloe And Ollie Will Own Star City.

              Damn right they will

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FlyingHigh
                In my opinion Al/Miles goal was to show a Clark who did not want to become a superhero, or have powers, or be in any way out of the ordinary (except possibly as a high-school quarterback).

                It is also my opinion that they would have written him as resisting his destiny regardless of whether Chloe was written into or kept on in the series. If she had died at the end of season 1, as Original Character Whitney did, I think Clark would still have been written as the whiney mopster who put Lana above all and who was constantly taking one step forward and two steps back.

                The fact that they didn't write Clark as being capable of solving all problems on his own from either the Pilot or the moment that Jonathan died (depending on when you think he should have started to embrace his destiny as a hero) had, again in my opinion, NOTHING to do with Chloe's presence on the show. It is my firm belief that had Chloe not existed (if, for instance, not-so-Almighty DC had decreed that Clark could only have two friends in high school and their names had to be "Pete Ross" and "Lana Lang"), the role of "hero inspirer" would have certainly gone to Lana. And this is because it is my firm belief that it would never have occurred to Al/Miles to write Clark as an independent, brilliant, proactive (fill in your favorite adjective for Superman that SV!Clark Kent does not embody) hero-from-the-get-go kind of guy.

                It's just not the story they wanted to tell.*

                Plus, after all the other horrors Al/Miles visited upon fans (Witch!Lana, Fake!Baby, Exploding!Baby, Secrets-and-Lies, the Veritas retcon, etc., etc.), does anyone really think the only thing standing in the way of a quality story featuring character-driven plot development that showed Clark following a believable progression from small-town farmboy to Superman is Chloe?



                *again, in my opinion
                *Claps*

                Comment

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