Tweet
Terrible episode. A single person having one night stands is not evil in my book and it should not have been used against Lex Luthor. There were no victims.
-
-
Yeah. The episode made a case against Lex they didn't back up. For example, the reason why How I Met Your Mother's Robin was so upset was because she left her fiancé in hopes that it would become more with Lex. But when they showed their second encounter, Lex never made any promises or gestures whatsoever. If it went different the first time account we only have her word for it - and that's not counting for much given that she's a crazy murderer.
Clark and the Kents may have different standards in that regard, but the world as a whole doesn't work that way anymore and women have been equal players in the one-night game for quite a while.Comment
-
Yeah, I can understand Clark and his parents not liking that, but don't create an
entire episode telling us Lex is wrong for being a single rich guy who sleeps with
many women. I also didn't like how it made the women look. It's an old stereotype. I forgot crazy lady was engaged.Last edited by Simba_Muffy; 03-18-2013, 12:14 AM.Comment
-
Comment
-
Exactly; I think that's where they were going with it, just a glimpse into how Lex tends to view people as objects for his own gratification sometimes rather than looking deeper and thinking of their feelings. That being said though, as others have pointed out, those women -- in many cases -- should have known that these were just one-night stands unless Lex said anything to make them feel otherwise, and I do think that Clark was a bit too harsh on Lex. But I still really enjoy the episode. That moment in the barn at the end when Lex says, "Don't give up on me yet" is just so heartbreaking every time I watch it. Michael really deserved an Emmy for all of his work as Lex Luthor.Comment
-
I don't get the hate for this episode. It explores the Clark/Lex very well IMO. It makes Clark think twice about Lex and I love the scene between them at the end where Lex says "Don't give up on me". I can totally understand why Shannon went psycho after Lex (even though I will admit that it was obviously a set up).Comment
-
I agree with the folks that didn't understand why Lex was painted 'evil' for having one night stands. I mean... isn't it the stereotype that that's how billionaire's kids are? I mean, was that really supposed to be that shocking to viewers... or even to Clark. I guess I understand why he was jarred by the realization that Lex wasn't as committed to relationships as he is (I mean... seven+ years of not just tolerating but staying almost always committed to Lana!!) but how does 'breaking up with them' by sending them diamond earrings make Lex the mustache-twirling supervillain here? I didn't get it. There are a lot of instances in the show where Clark RANDOMLY starts accusing Lex of being 'ohmigod, I can't believe you just did that'-level of evil when all he did is--in his words--swat at a fly with too much force... this is one of them.
The argument can be made that the situation just made Clark realize that Lex is more self-centered and doesn't care about others' feelings as much as Clark originally thought, but that's not really the feeling I got. Clark says something like, "Just the way he treated those girls...", which made me think he was more upset with the 'one night stand'-ness of it all. But really? The girls were making that decision too. Or what--they see a charming billionaire who flirts with them within seconds of meeting them and decide, 'hey, he's potentially dating-and-serious-relationship-material, why don't I sleep with him tonight just to find out?'
Sorry, that makes me sound callous. I do NOT mean to say that possibly giving Shannon false hope, ruining her engagement and her life, and breaking her heart is equivalent to swatting a fly with too much force. I'm just saying that a lot of what Shannon went through was actually the result of a very bad decision on her part and that Clark shouldn't have blamed Lex for it 100%. What kind of a girl has a one-night stand with a guy (WHILE in a relationship that is obviously going somewhere given that she was engaged to the guy) and then gives up the rest of her life for him? Really, Shannon? Really? Those are the kind of girls I look at and really want to comfort... but also really want to learn from in regards to how not to act in my life.Last edited by Chandu.Lahari; 10-30-2013, 08:57 PM.Comment
-
Borderline idiotic in how it was put together, and the main story about Lex being a serial womaniser served no real purpose because such a thing has no express bearing on his character. James Bond is a serial womaniser yet it's never doubted that he's one of the good guys. The other story was barely touched upon.
Lana has nightmare about Isobel's death, seeing Jason's mother's face. Then she actually meets Jason's mother and looks like she's seeing a ghost. Lana tells Jason about it later on. Jason reluctantly meets his mother and wonders if when he first met Lana it was by chance or part of some nefarious plan cooked up by his mother.
You can clearly see the actress wearing glasses standing by the door of Lex's office is played by Cobie Smulders (just as Clark walks in), the supposed dead girl. Obviously the idea of Lex having numerous one night stands, jibbing off the women with jewellery and then forgetting about them would explain why he didn't recognise her standing there, but considering his recent one night stand was fresh in the mind and he was facing a murder charge, her face would surely be burned into his memory.
Secondly, Metropolis law enforcement has to be amongst the worst on the planet. No security at the dead girl's house. The crime scene far from secured. They must be trained by same people LutherCorp hire to handle their security. Lex even asks Shannon how she got past security. Just walking through the front door seems to be enough to get into the Luther mansion.
Thirdly, Clark's save looked ridiculous with his rodeo cowboy impression when putting out the fire.
The episode did have a couple of humorous moments though. Chloe trying to get Clark to re-enact the tryst in the elevator until the doors opened and they see a women with two children watching was funny. Chloe obviously did that for the close contact while Clark did his patented 'awkward and nervous around a girl' routine. The other funny moment is when Clark tells Lex that he went to Lionel who wants to help. Lex looks like he was trying to stifle a laugh.
It's hard to buy Genevieve as Jason's mother because he's clearly an all-American boy with his southern accent and love of (American) football, while she is every bit the upper class Brit with her accent and almost aristocratic in her manner. And yet the way he talks about her and how she's tried to control him all his life suggests that they actually did live together while he was growing up. I don't see it. Also, I don't know if it's natural ageing or whether Jane Seymour has had work done on her face but she looks so leathery; a far cry from the gorgeous young Solitaire from Live & Let Die (somehow I've shoehorned two Bonds references into one post!).Comment
-
Oh, I should mention I was surprised to hear Faithless' "I Want More" during that opening scene. Faithless are a phenomenally good live act though "I Want More" can be classed as average fare for them.Comment
-
The main problem the plot had was it tried to portray Lex as a bad guy for sleeping with random women. Sure, Clark and the Kents have a different understanding of love and relationships but the world as a whole (and thereby the average viewer) have become a little more relaxed over the past few decades regarding this issue.
The problem is that we only get to see exactly one such encounter; at the beginning in the opera. And if that's your standard to go by, what woman could honestly expect to get anything out f this except (hopefully) a fun night with one or more orgasms? Lex didn't make any overt advances, he didn't promise heaven on earth or eternal love. He didn't promise anything at all. He didn't even date her. he just met her, they made a bit of non-verbal communication while covering it with a bit of smalltalk and then landed in bed.
Making Lex the bad guy here is applying a lot of very outdated and (in both directions) sexist stereotypes where a man can only court a woman when he has sincere intentions and she's the passive innocent maiden to be wooed with no agency of her own.
In today's society a single woman is a free agent who can make all the choices in the world. But with the freedom of choice also comes the burden of responsibilty. You can't have one without the other.
She was engaged (a fact Lex probably did not know about) but choose to bed another man (because he had a higher status in her eyes?) and yet blames her decisions on him like a child who can't foresee the consequences of her actions.Comment
-
This has to be the worst episode of the show's run. Usually, when I rewatch bad episodes, I can find something positive to say about it, but not this one. First off, you should never use sex, to demonstrate how someone is a bad person. Exceptions being where the sex was non-consentual or with a minor (those types of situations definitely makes someone a bad person), but here we're talking about consenting adults, engaging in a one-night stand.
The episode is not only judgemental about sex, but is also quite sexist. You have all of these female characters: Shannon Bell, Eve Andrews and Corinne. All are portrayed as being unable to handle casual sexual encounters. I could've overlooked this, if it had been one single woman (as then we'd be dealing with one single individual), but when all women (who have had sex) are portrayed in such a way, the episode suggests that grown women aren't mentally capable of handling such matters.
The episode insists that Shannon was a victim, when she was actually the one, who cheated on her fiancé. She dumped the guy, because she thought she had a shot at a billionaire. She's the bad guy in all of this, not Lex. She's the one, who did something wrong. In the opening scene, we don't see Lex doing anything morally questionable, to get her into bed. She also claims that Lex destroyed her life... because the most important thing in a woman's life is getting married, apparently (for some reason, she can't meet someone new and marry that person). Without a ring on her finger, she's worthless (yeah, that's not sexist at all).
Found Clark's involvement in the whole thing odd. Out of nowhere, he shows up at Luthor Mansion and then he's suddenly investigating the case. While the police does nothing, apparently. Seriously, they have Shannon on camera. Once Eve was identified, they (the cops) should've realized that the dead girl wasn't the one that Lex hooked up with. The security footage would also have allowed them to I.D. Shannon. Case close. No need to involve Clark.
In an unrelated plot, we're introduced to Jason's mother (who, of course, comments on Lana's great beauty 3-4 times). However, first Lana has a dream about Isobel's death, where she sees Duchess Gertrude, who looks just like Jason's mom and have glowing purple eyes (implying that she too have powers?). Nothing ever came out of this. So, the flashback is completely pointless. Apart from setting up, that the Teagues are related to Isobel's enemy (was this needed?), it served no purpose. It didn't lead to Gertrude possessing Genevieve Teague or anything. So, why bother having Mrs. Teague having a look-a-like ancestor?Comment
-
The only memorable part of this episode is that Cobie Smulders was in it. Season 4 had a really average run of episodes between Jinx and Onyx.Last edited by costas22; 01-06-2018, 10:28 AM.Comment
Comment