Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Are (Live-Action) Superman Writers Obsessed With Violating Lois Lane?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Are (Live-Action) Superman Writers Obsessed With Violating Lois Lane?



    I have been going through the show Lois and Clark lately, and among the many things that have struck me is that Lois is being violated, *again*.


    In the middle of season 3, we have some historically bizarre plot where frog-eating clones emerge on the scene due to Lex Luthor, I'll recap for those of you that don't remember the events of 1997 television. One of the frog-eating clones is a Lois clone, created so that Clark does not notice that she is gone. Let us go over what happens. First, Lex kidnaps Lois and ties her up and replaces her with some sort of clone (first violation). Then, when she loses her memory the first time, he gives her some fictional narrative to make her fall in love with him (second violation). He wants to transplant her into a different body (third violation). When she emerges from that coma, she is hit by yet another rock (look at how weak Superman is, he can't even help Lois Lane!) and is sent to the mental hospital. Once there, her psychologist decides to derail her treatment in order to have some amnesiac shell of her fall in love with him (fourth violation),


    That's four violations over the span of a few episodes, I presume that both Lex and the doctor had sex with her while she was in that state, really gross. There might be more violations by the time I finish season 3. I see what the writers were trying to do, first they're trying to make Lex look truly evil, but with this cheap trick they make both Lois and Clark look like headless chickens. Then they try to create drama in the show's primary relationship by delaying it, by introducing some romantic new interest (the creepy shrink). This tops off an entire season of a seemingly anorexic Teri Hatcher looking a lot weaker and helpless than she was in the first two seasons. As a foil to almighty superman, Lois has to be weak.


    Now, this has been done elsewhere. In Superman II, the movie ends with Clark mind-raping Lois by deleting all her memories. She doesn't get to make any decisions for herself, he is her God and he decides what she can know and what she cannot know. I'm not sure, but that is the original mindrape. The same strategy was used in Smallville season 9. They had reached a stage where every single main character on the show, from Oliver Queen through to Lana Lang, knew who "the blur" was but not Lois. She came back from Pandora and she was traumatised, partly because she saw a confusing world where she didn't have the information. What do they do? They take away her memories. I was terrified that they would delete Lois' memories in the series finale of Smallville so as to start the show at the Lois and Clark stage, I am happy they did not do that.


    As of right now they have not done any of this BS to Amy Adams' Lois Lane, which might only be because she has had very little screen time and development. However, given the dehumanizing tricks prior Superman writers have used to delay the romance and amplify the drama as much as possible, I am happy that Goyer wrote this Lois and Clark couple to be one that moves forward rather than laterally. They are attracted to each other quite rapidly, and he is honest with her, and that honesty is written as a foundation of the relationship, rather than the hot drama and steamy mystery of secrets. I hope that in sequels Amy Adams' character maintains the agency she now has, that was stripped from each of Margot Kidder, Teri Hatcher, and Erica Durance at various stages.

  • #2
    I've already responded to this in another thread. You're interpreting these things from the perspective that rape exists in that world and is a profoundly personal and intimate violation. The problem is that when these worlds were crafted, that concept was not built into them. It's not a fair standard. The so called "mind-rape" at the end of Superman II is not a violation. The entirety of the scene is about Lois being in a bad way and Superman helping her to feel better by relieving her burden.

    Now, that doesn't mean it isn't bad writing. It is bad writing, but for a totally unrelated reason. It is bad writing because it undermines the drama, creates a random ability out of nowhere to fix a major conflict, and renders moot the consequences of prior decisions.

    As far as the Lois and Clark peril is concerned, making Lois the one in trouble makes the conflict personal. It's also much easier to write her as in danger than it is to write Superman in danger. I can't speak to it any more in depth as I got bored with that show pretty quickly.

    Comment


    • #3
      interesting I think the writers think how can we hurt Superman make this a bit more personal and so they take it out on Lois. If your first thoughts is to seriously injure Lois it just shows your limitations as a writers(IMO) is that you have to resort to this to get a good story. Thankfully the good writers don't have to resort to that well not always.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by maasaloo
        interesting I think the writers think how can we hurt Superman make this a bit more personal and so they take it out on Lois. If your first thoughts is to seriously injure Lois it just shows your limitations as a writers(IMO) is that you have to resort to this to get a good story. Thankfully the good writers don't have to resort to that well not always.
        I agree, writers with limitations.

        "Help, Superman! Help!" is a failure of a plot device.

        Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
        I've already responded to this in another thread. You're interpreting these things from the perspective that rape exists in that world and is a profoundly personal and intimate violation. The problem is that when these worlds were crafted, that concept was not built into them. It's not a fair standard. The so called "mind-rape" at the end of Superman II is not a violation. The entirety of the scene is about Lois being in a bad way and Superman helping her to feel better by relieving her burden.

        Now, that doesn't mean it isn't bad writing. It is bad writing, but for a totally unrelated reason. It is bad writing because it undermines the drama, creates a random ability out of nowhere to fix a major conflict, and renders moot the consequences of prior decisions.

        As far as the Lois and Clark peril is concerned, making Lois the one in trouble makes the conflict personal. It's also much easier to write her as in danger than it is to write Superman in danger. I can't speak to it any more in depth as I got bored with that show pretty quickly.
        After I wrote that post, I watched another couple Lois and Clark episodes. In a subsequent episodes, the creepy psychologist asks Lois if she trusts him. She says yes, and then he puts her on hypnosis to "give her back her memories". When she is under hypnosis, he tells her to forget about clark kent, to quit her job at the daily planet, that she only loves him, and that she is going to move with him to the south of France.

        Is that not a mind-rape? It's really creepy to watch, and I'm not sure it's necessary. I don't think that kind of stuff should be shown on that kind of popcorn TV, it's also why I hate the show Law & Order SVU. I think it trivializes a serious issue that concerns a lot of living people to tackle it in a non-serious manner. The X-Files had a few good episodes dealing with violence against women, but they had higher quality writers (sometimes).

        As for Superman II, if I was the only one who had a problem with that scene you would be right, but I'm not. Ultimately, what matters most with a text is not what the writer intended, but how people perceive it. A lot of people perceive that scene as violating Lois' personhood, and if the original writers did not see that coming then that is a failure on their part in my opinion.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by DA_Champion
          After I wrote that post, I watched another couple Lois and Clark episodes. In a subsequent episodes, the creepy psychologist asks Lois if she trusts him. She says yes, and then he puts her on hypnosis to "give her back her memories". When she is under hypnosis, he tells her to forget about clark kent, to quit her job at the daily planet, that she only loves him, and that she is going to move with him to the south of France.

          Is that not a mind-rape? It's really creepy to watch, and I'm not sure it's necessary. I don't think that kind of stuff should be shown on that kind of popcorn TV, it's also why I hate the show Law & Order SVU.
          People get hypnotized in sitcoms all the time and are made to cluck like chickens. Is that mind-rape and creepy?

          Since you are interpreting it through the lens of what it would be in reality, I have no doubt you find it creepy and messed up. You should if you're going to view it that way. I look at the art and ask myself what that world was built for. In that world, the bad guy is absolutely doing a bad thing, but it's a bad thing done in a completely sterilized world where it takes on a totally different connotation.

          As for Superman II, if I was the only one who had a problem with that scene you would be right, but I'm not. Ultimately, what matters most with a text is not what the writer intended, but how people perceive it. A lot of people perceive that scene as violating Lois' personhood, and if the original writers did not see that coming then that is a failure on their part in my opinion.
          Really? That's your argument? "A lot of people agree with me"? Do I have to come back with "a lot of people once thought that the Earth was flat"? Or, to take a more artistic perspective, do I have to come back with the idea that some people find certain art offensive while others, who interpret it differently, do not? The fact that "a lot of others had a problem with that scene" does not mean that those people are correct, especially in a world where a lot of people look for reasons to be upset... you know this. I remember you defending Smallville's depiction of Clark destroying "two towers". A lot of people were angry about that and you weren't. How is this different?

          If you're going to dispute my argument, go to the art and tell me why I am wrong based on the art itself. Tell me why I am wrong that, for instance, "rape" doesn't exist on Sesame Street. Then, tell me why I am wrong that it doesn't exist in Superman II.

          Comment


          • #6
            I will be honest.
            I have virtually no recollection of sesame street, thus I have no idea what you mean. I think sesame street has muppets count to 10 and sing the alphabet. I don't know if it has any rape metaphors.

            Comment


            • #7
              Um..... all right.

              Then stick to the Smallville one. In an episode of Smallville, Clark knocks down two towers. Many people on these boards were offended by it, interpreting it as having a strong parallel to 9-11 and putting Clark in the role of terrorist. You vehemently opposed this stance and, if I recall correctly, even said something to the affect of "people need to get over it".

              How are the people who need to get over that wrong, but your argument is right because other people agree with you?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
                Um..... all right.

                Then stick to the Smallville one. In an episode of Smallville, Clark knocks down two towers. Many people on these boards were offended by it, interpreting it as having a strong parallel to 9-11 and putting Clark in the role of terrorist. You vehemently opposed this stance and, if I recall correctly, even said something to the affect of "people need to get over it".

                How are the people who need to get over that wrong, but your argument is right because other people agree with you?
                I did say that about 9/11, and I still mean it in some general context, though I don't remember if that was a valid point for that episode. My view is 9/11 metaphors are fair game if handled correctly, where "correctly" is up for debate and I'm not sure what would count as "correctly", to be honest. In the case of Man of Steel, they blew up a large swath of Metropolis and they had towers fall over. The bare minimum is for the sequel to acknowledge this in in some non-trivial way. A more educated person could elaborate much further.

                If you have a rape scene in a TV show, like when the creepy shrink hypnotises Lois, where the writer possibly doesn't even realise it's a rape scene, I think that is in many ways even worse than showcasing the scene as it is. We, as a society, have a tendency to not just defeat our victims but to erase them. It's why people deny genocides: scholars have argued (convincingly imo) that denying a crime is the last step in committing a crime.

                I am way off topic ...

                Comment


                • #9
                  I believe that artists and entertainers have something to say. I believe that when they make a movie or tv show, write a book, paint something, or otherwise that they aren't just making a statement, but are also building a vehicle that perfectly allows them to make that statement. Bad filmmakers execute their vision poorly, contradict themselves, or are incapable of it. I look at it like a building. Before you can decorate a room, you must first build the foundation. The foundation supports the structure that is meant to be built. If you build a foundation to a one story house, and then build a beautiful one story house, you've done a good job. It is then an unfair criticism for someone to come along and say that the building fails to meet the requirements of a 10-story apartment building. I think that's what you're doing with all this talk of mind-raping.

                  When you have a sitcom or cartoon where one character hypnotizes another and gets them to do embarrassing things, it is rarely if ever considered a major violation. That's because cartoons and sitcoms tend to be deliberately constructed worlds, foundations, for delivering a specifically structured comedy (the building). The message isn't about rape, isn't ignoring rape, because rape doesn't exist in that world. The message is entertainment. It is comedy, perhaps something simple as slapstick. It is meant to make people laugh. The world is built to accommodate that message of fun.

                  Similarly, Lois and Clark, and a lot of Superman stories, are built to accommodate a certain level of fun and adventure. Can they be more? Can there be metaphors? Yes. Those can exist, but they don't exist just because the viewer wants them to, and we can't inspect the text for something real world when the world represented is not real. We're not ignoring Lois as a victim of these violations and the term that you're using, "rape", is unfair. The world is built to interpret these things as a bad guy doing a bad thing... the very same as if Lex robbed a bank, or Metallo kidnapped someone, or Brainiac was holding the city hostage. We know that it is a sterilized world because of the way the violence is depicted, because we're not shown the sex you're implying, because the actual damage done to Lois isn't traumatic. That's not ignoring the victimization, it's the depiction of violence as not having the same consequences. She was never in the same kind of danger as real world mortality. It's a game. She's not real.

                  If your argument is that the world of Lois and Clark is our real world in its depiction, then you're right. That's not my interpretation of its existence. People don't curse in that world. They don't bleed when struck. Their minds aren't traumatized by violence in the same way that ours are. No one gets raped. If you have a drug problem, it's an addiction to some weird version of Kryptonite, not heroin. Your teeth don't fall out. You don't sell your body for more drug money. And if you ever have a drug problem, it is developed and gone in the span of 44 minutes of total runtime. The status quo is prolonged to accommodate cookie cutter stories told over and over with different actors and only cosmetically altered stories.

                  Lois and Clark wanted to be a family focused show. Its goal was to deliver family entertainment and to tell very basic moral stories, not to dive deep into the gray areas of our screwed up society. There's no denial of genocide here. There's no denial of rape. Rape doesn't exist in that world, mainly because the psychological trauma real rape creates doesn't exist, and not because it's being ignored. It is because Lois was never in any danger of actually suffering that trauma.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Not sure if off topic but here goes:

                    Fantasy fiction has this whole thing about love potions. They are essentially date rape drugs but are almost never treated as such. The shows and movies almost always go for comedy. They just don't have the balls to implicate anything but because that would make it creepy and lessen the impact of the comedy that show/movie/book is going for. Essentially it makes people think too much.

                    But Lo and Behold the Great King Whedon and the Queen Rowling!

                    In S6 of Buffy the Big Bads of the season create an orb (I think it was an orb) that could make any woman into essentially a sex slave. The Trio of baddies make one of their ex-girlfriends a housekeeper who brings them drinks and the like. It's initially played for comedy but when the more rapey stuff up the show doesn't shy away from it. They don't rape the girl but when she wakes up from the mind control she is accidentally killed. Accidentally or intentionally, the girl was going to bail and the Trio couldn't have that. So what started as comedy took a dark turn really quick.

                    In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince there's this whole side plot about girls trying to give Harry a love potion. It's all shrugged off with laughs and comedy but then we have Dumbledore giving remarks about love potions being some of the most dangerous magics/potions there are. Later Harry learns why. Not only does the love potion side plot get Ron poisoned indirectly but Harry also learns that Voldemort was actually born as a result of a love potion. It's hinted that Voldemort's inability to love anyone is partly due to the potion. We also learn that Tom Riddle Sr. abandoned Voldemort's mother Merope as soon as she decided to not use the love potions anymore. The word rape is never uttered in the book but based on Tom's reaction (the dude abandoned his actual bride to be because of the potion!) we see some serious consequences. And Tom Riddle Jr. ended up as an orphan without either of his parents. Granted the mother died of birth but because the relationship was based on a lie the dad didn't stick around. Voldemort wouldn't have existed without a love potion in more ways than one.

                    So in short while (mind) rape doesn't exist in many fictional stories, it doesn't exist in the fantasy I tip my hat to works that take things a bit more seriously.
                    Last edited by BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow; 07-11-2013, 09:05 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Backward Galaxy
                      I believe that artists and entertainers have something to say. I believe that when they make a movie or tv show, write a book, paint something, or otherwise that they aren't just making a statement, but are also building a vehicle that perfectly allows them to make that statement. Bad filmmakers execute their vision poorly, contradict themselves, or are incapable of it. I look at it like a building. Before you can decorate a room, you must first build the foundation. The foundation supports the structure that is meant to be built. If you build a foundation to a one story house, and then build a beautiful one story house, you've done a good job. It is then an unfair criticism for someone to come along and say that the building fails to meet the requirements of a 10-story apartment building. I think that's what you're doing with all this talk of mind-raping.

                      When you have a sitcom or cartoon where one character hypnotizes another and gets them to do embarrassing things, it is rarely if ever considered a major violation. That's because cartoons and sitcoms tend to be deliberately constructed worlds, foundations, for delivering a specifically structured comedy (the building). The message isn't about rape, isn't ignoring rape, because rape doesn't exist in that world. The message is entertainment. It is comedy, perhaps something simple as slapstick. It is meant to make people laugh. The world is built to accommodate that message of fun.

                      Similarly, Lois and Clark, and a lot of Superman stories, are built to accommodate a certain level of fun and adventure. Can they be more? Can there be metaphors? Yes. Those can exist, but they don't exist just because the viewer wants them to, and we can't inspect the text for something real world when the world represented is not real. We're not ignoring Lois as a victim of these violations and the term that you're using, "rape", is unfair. The world is built to interpret these things as a bad guy doing a bad thing... the very same as if Lex robbed a bank, or Metallo kidnapped someone, or Brainiac was holding the city hostage. We know that it is a sterilized world because of the way the violence is depicted, because we're not shown the sex you're implying, because the actual damage done to Lois isn't traumatic. That's not ignoring the victimization, it's the depiction of violence as not having the same consequences. She was never in the same kind of danger as real world mortality. It's a game. She's not real.

                      If your argument is that the world of Lois and Clark is our real world in its depiction, then you're right. That's not my interpretation of its existence. People don't curse in that world. They don't bleed when struck. Their minds aren't traumatized by violence in the same way that ours are. No one gets raped. If you have a drug problem, it's an addiction to some weird version of Kryptonite, not heroin. Your teeth don't fall out. You don't sell your body for more drug money. And if you ever have a drug problem, it is developed and gone in the span of 44 minutes of total runtime. The status quo is prolonged to accommodate cookie cutter stories told over and over with different actors and only cosmetically altered stories.

                      Lois and Clark wanted to be a family focused show. Its goal was to deliver family entertainment and to tell very basic moral stories, not to dive deep into the gray areas of our screwed up society. There's no denial of genocide here. There's no denial of rape. Rape doesn't exist in that world, mainly because the psychological trauma real rape creates doesn't exist, and not because it's being ignored. It is because Lois was never in any danger of actually suffering that trauma.
                      On Lois and Clark, you say that we should measure the writers based on what they're trying to do. I'm not in their head, I don't know for sure what they were trying to do, but I'll give you my guess: I think they were trying to extend the Clois romance. They introduced this new psychologist as a plausible romantic threat, the same as they did at the end of season 2 with the pharmaceutical guy. That's what they were trying to do: extend the drama. It's similar to Lana Lang only learning Clark's secret in season six (!!!) of Smallville. If we evaluate the writers based on their first priority, then they succeeded, this indeed delayed the progression Clois romance. However, at some point it is fair to criticize a one-story house on the basis that I don't want a one-story house. There is only so much room for narrative arcs that move laterally rather than forward. There is a line beyond which if a writer crosses it is fair to say that they should not have made that story as opposed to simply that they made that story the wrong way. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, but both Lois and Clark and Smallville crossed that line.

                      I am also not even sure that they didn't want to make viewers uncomfortable / excited. They wanted to show Lois Lane helpless, have superman save her, and to delay the romantic progression. OK, there were a million ways to do this. Why did they have to go this route? I'm pretty sure it's because on some level they knew that it would be creepy, and that creepy is an effective means of hooking fans.

                      There's another episode in Season 3 that I liked a lot. In it, a rejected woman makes a shrinking potion that moves via shampoo. She shrinks the partners of people who were mean to her in high school, and locks them up in a lego house. In the end episode, Lois and shrunken superman work together to defeat her. [[and btw I am pretty sure that she is super-shrunk and thus Superman killed her, and there were no consequences and no agony ]]. This episode was "family-friendly fun" in my opinion. There was nothing creepy about it. They were not expropriating a situation that would be traumatic to millions of people (9/11, holocaust, rape, gulf war syndrome, etc) in order to push the buttons of viewers. I think that good, creative, dedicated stories could come up with countless stories like this one.

                      Back to Superman II. I think we can agree that Superman should be a role model for kids. At the end of Superman II, he sees that Lois is too helpless to have control over her future with the information she knows, so he wipes her mind without telling her, leaving her with a hole in her heart she does not understand, and possibly a super-pregnancy. He runs away from problems by trying to turn them off. What message does this send?

                      To return to the original theme of my original post, why not go with the storyline that Lois Lane is indeed under an incredibly heavy burden by knowing that Clark Kent = Superman, and that her lover is an alien? Have Lois Lane be an incredible woman that she finds the means to deal with it. Why not empower her rather than violate her? Can I come up with an interesting character arc that can portray this properly right here and right now? No, but I'm not a professional writer. I know a little bit about writing. I know that such a story would be more challenging to tell then one where Lois' mind is wiped clean and where we can have Lana Lang as a love interest in the subsequent film.

                      Originally posted by BoyScout-ManOfTomorrow
                      Not sure if off topic but here goes:

                      Fantasy fiction has this whole thing about love potions. They are essentially date rape drugs but are almost never treated as such. The shows and movies almost always go for comedy. They just don't have the balls to implicate anything but because that would make it creepy and lessen the impact of the comedy that show/movie/book is going for. Essentially it makes people think too much.

                      But Lo and Behold the Great King Whedon and the Queen Rowling!

                      In S6 of Buffy the Big Bads of the season create an orb (I think it was an orb) that could make any woman into essentially a sex slave. The Trio of baddies make one of their ex-girlfriends a housekeeper who brings them drinks and the like. It's initially played for comedy but when the more rapey stuff up the show doesn't shy away from it. They don't rape the girl but when she wakes up from the mind control she is accidentally killed. Accidentally or intentionally, the girl was going to bail and the Trio couldn't have that. So what started as comedy took a dark turn really quick.

                      In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince there's this whole side plot about girls trying to give Harry a love potion. It's all shrugged off with laughs and comedy but then we have Dumbledore giving remarks about love potions being some of the most dangerous magics/potions there are. Later Harry learns why. Not only does the love potion side plot get Ron poisoned indirectly but Harry also learns that Voldemort was actually born as a result of a love potion. It's hinted that Voldemort's inability to love anyone is partly due to the potion. We also learn that Tom Riddle Sr. abandoned Voldemort's mother Merope as soon as she decided to not use the love potions anymore. The word rape is never uttered in the book but based on Tom's reaction (the dude abandoned his actual bride to be because of the potion!) we see some serious consequences. And Tom Riddle Jr. ended up as an orphan without either of his parents. Granted the mother died of birth but because the relationship was based on a lie the dad didn't stick around. Voldemort wouldn't have existed without a love potion in more ways than one.

                      So in short while (mind) rape doesn't exist in many fictional stories, it doesn't exist in the fantasy I tip my hat to works that take things a bit more seriously.
                      I didn't read Harry Potter, so I won't comment. I tried to read the first book but I could not get into it. But I agree with your points, these writers, JK Rowling, and pre-Avengers Joss Whedon, are better writers. They do in fact use the tired tropes, but on sufficiently frequent occasions they added in their own innovation and we saw that they were aware of the problems.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If we're talking mind-rape the only actual cases I would count on Smallville are where Brainiac invades a person or where a Brainiac-infected-Chloe obliterates this guy Sebastian's mind completely.

                        Mind-wipes have been done lots of times throughout the show, starting with Kyle Tippet's and Bob Rickman's ability to make people what they want and then make them forget they did it. Or Clark's erasage of Chloe's memories of him in S8*. Or Tess' erasage of Lex's memories of Smallville. Or Lionel's erasageof Lex's memories in Belle Reve.

                        I think you have to qualify what the circumstances and the intentions of the mind-wipe were. When Clark, Chloe and Ollie tricked Jimmy into disbelieving that Clark is the Blur isn't that almost the same thing? He knew something for sure and afterwards he didn't.

                        In my opinion, a mind violation is when you enter someone's midn against their will to either make them relive things (like Tess did with Lois) or if I take pleasure entering someone's mind to make them see things I invented or I experienced. For example, I don't consider Sebastian's ability a "mind rape". It was an invasion of privacy for sure. Just like Jerk-El giving Clark the ability to uncontrolably reading people's minds. Sebastian was a stalker and a murderer, but he wasn't a mind-rapist.


                        *BTW: I consider Clark's erasage of Chloe's memories of him as one of the lower things Clark has done. It wasn't his call to make, there were no "medical necessities" to do it (e.g. if it had been necessary to remove Brainiac). And he should have been called out on it on the show in a What the Hell, Hero? moment.
                        Last edited by DJ Doena; 07-11-2013, 11:10 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DJ Doena
                          If we're talking mind-rape the only actual cases I would count on Smallville are where Brainiac invades a person or where a Brainiac-infected-Chloe obliterates this guy Sebastian's mind completely.

                          Mind-wipes have been done lots of times throughout the show, starting with Kyle Tippet's and Bob Rickman's ability to make people what they want and then make them forget they did it. Or Clark's erasage of Chloe's memories of him in S8*. Or Tess' erasage of Lex's memories of Smallville. Or Lionel's erasageof Lex's memories in Belle Reve.

                          I think you have to qualify what the circumstances and the intentions of the mind-wipe were. When Clark, Chloe and Ollie tricked Jimmy into disbelieving that Clark is the Blur isn't that almost the same thing? He knew something for sure and afterwards he didn't.

                          In my opinion, a mind violation is when you enter someone's midn against their will to either make them relive things (like Tess did with Lois) or if I take pleasure entering someone's mind to make them see things I invented or I experienced. For example, I don't consider Sebastian's ability a "mind rape". It was an invasion of privacy for sure. Just like Jerk-El giving Clark the ability to uncontrolably reading people's minds. Sebastian was a stalker and a murderer, but he wasn't a mind-rapist.


                          *BTW: I consider Clark's erasage of Chloe's memories of him as one of the lower things Clark has done. It wasn't his call to make, there were no "medical necessities" to do it (e.g. if it had been necessary to remove Brainiac). And he should have been called out on it on the show in a What the Hell, Hero? moment.
                          All of these are very legitimate points, and I'm not surprised to see that over ~200 episodes the Smallville writers recycled some plot lines. However, this detracts from my point though, why do this to Lois Lane consistently in nearly every incarnation?

                          There are countless stories that could be told, and in any verse you will only tell a small subsample of them. The creators have to make choices of which story tell and which to not tell. Somehow, the writers opt for the narratives where Lois is violated in whichever way, regardless of whether or not you argue that these violations are minor in the cartoon world, they are still violations and will be perceived as such by many audience members. They are still stories chosen over alternative storylines where Lane (or Chloe!) could somehow overpower her circumstance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I can't really judge LnC because I only ever watched the first two seasons and a few select episodes after that (mostly Tempus) - I never saw the Frog arc.

                            On Smallville however everyone got their fair share of mindf*ck treatment, including the male cast. Lex was shot and lived an alternate life where his mother thought it would be a good finish to show him his wife dying. Clark's mind was invaded by a Phantom where he was made to believe that he is insane and cost Lex both his legs and got Chloe killed. Lionel's brain was invaded by an alien mind that lasted for over a season. Clark was infected by Brainiac and got totally paranoid, seeing things that weren't there.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DA_Champion
                              On Lois and Clark, you say that we should measure the writers based on what they're trying to do. I'm not in their head, I don't know for sure what they were trying to do, but I'll give you my guess: I think they were trying to extend the Clois romance. They introduced this new psychologist as a plausible romantic threat, the same as they did at the end of season 2 with the pharmaceutical guy. That's what they were trying to do: extend the drama. It's similar to Lana Lang only learning Clark's secret in season six (!!!) of Smallville. If we evaluate the writers based on their first priority, then they succeeded, this indeed delayed the progression Clois romance. However, at some point it is fair to criticize a one-story house on the basis that I don't want a one-story house. There is only so much room for narrative arcs that move laterally rather than forward. There is a line beyond which if a writer crosses it is fair to say that they should not have made that story as opposed to simply that they made that story the wrong way. I'm not sure exactly where that line is, but both Lois and Clark and Smallville crossed that line.
                              I completely agree with this. And I criticized Smallville with respect to this on many occasions. You're right.

                              A "return to the status quo" is often studio edict and is what saves a lot of shows. It makes them easier and faster to produces because you can hand several different writers the "series Bible" and they can write a story that fits the formula and insert it in whenever it is ready. Additionally, as stories actually progress, characters change and so does the dynamic of the show. When that happens, very often you end up with an entirely different show than the one you started with. The one you started with is what got you all your viewers. You risk losing those viewers if you change too much. That's why a lot of the shows that "mix things up" are the ones that were close to cancellation or were in need of a boost.

                              But that's more the process and doesn't excuse the writing. It's more just a reason.

                              I am also not even sure that they didn't want to make viewers uncomfortable / excited. They wanted to show Lois Lane helpless, have superman save her, and to delay the romantic progression. OK, there were a million ways to do this. Why did they have to go this route? I'm pretty sure it's because on some level they knew that it would be creepy, and that creepy is an effective means of hooking fans.
                              There was definitely an attempt at conflict and drama of sorts, yes.

                              There's another episode in Season 3 that I liked a lot. In it, a rejected woman makes a shrinking potion that moves via shampoo. She shrinks the partners of people who were mean to her in high school, and locks them up in a lego house. In the end episode, Lois and shrunken superman work together to defeat her. [[and btw I am pretty sure that she is super-shrunk and thus Superman killed her, and there were no consequences and no agony ]]. This episode was "family-friendly fun" in my opinion. There was nothing creepy about it. They were not expropriating a situation that would be traumatic to millions of people (9/11, holocaust, rape, gulf war syndrome, etc) in order to push the buttons of viewers. I think that good, creative, dedicated stories could come up with countless stories like this one.

                              Back to Superman II. I think we can agree that Superman should be a role model for kids. At the end of Superman II, he sees that Lois is too helpless to have control over her future with the information she knows, so he wipes her mind without telling her, leaving her with a hole in her heart she does not understand, and possibly a super-pregnancy. He runs away from problems by trying to turn them off. What message does this send?
                              The super-pregnancy was something that I don't think anyone considered at the time because I don't think it was ever thought of as something that happens in that universe. This was one of my criticisms of Superman Returns. It tried to tell a story that Donner's universe couldn't actually support.

                              I also interpret that scene differently. Superman makes a sacrifice in that scene. He doesn't run away from his problems. He meets them head on. For starters, I don't see the hole in Lois's heart. She is, by all accounts, perfectly fine after that. If there was some sort of lingering feeling of loss that she couldn't explain, that would be a hole. As it is, there is no hole and she suffers from no trauma. Clark is also still there and with her. He can reverse the effects if he sees that he's hurt her. He can explain it all to her again. He can be there for her both as Clark and Superman if he needs to be and if she needs him to be. He hasn't abandoned her. Finally, Clark loves Lois. She means the world to him. He wants to love her, but he can't, and now he sees that in addition to that he cannot even be totally honest with her. In no way did that movie universe suggest that Clark is happy with that arrangement. Helping her to forget, in my mind, hurts him deeply. He doesn't want to do it. He does what he thinks is best for her and sacrifices his own happiness. I believe that is the (perhaps shallow) intent and message of that scene.

                              To return to the original theme of my original post, why not go with the storyline that Lois Lane is indeed under an incredibly heavy burden by knowing that Clark Kent = Superman, and that her lover is an alien? Have Lois Lane be an incredible woman that she finds the means to deal with it. Why not empower her rather than violate her? Can I come up with an interesting character arc that can portray this properly right here and right now? No, but I'm not a professional writer. I know a little bit about writing. I know that such a story would be more challenging to tell then one where Lois' mind is wiped clean and where we can have Lana Lang as a love interest in the subsequent film.
                              Without a doubt, that would have been an interesting storyline, but they chose not to go in that direction. I would blame that on the director they hired to replace Donner, but he had Superman turn back time, so that wouldn't work.

                              Comment

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