Who else thought it was ridiculous that Lana stopped Clark from killing?

[sithius]

'Lex has separated us, I WILL KILL HIM!'

What happened to the man of steel (admittedly he isn't there yet but he should be close enough by now) not killing, no matter what? In Kingdom Come the Joker batters Lois and Jimmy to death and he doesn't kill him. Yet we have a bit of heartbreak here and he's willing to go and kill Lex? Right. I can just about buy it if Lana was killed (at a massive stretch), because he's still young, but the fact that no one is even dead is just ridiculous. How is this idiot supposed to become Superman in the next few years with an attitude like this? And he dares to condemn Ollie for wanting to kill Lex who's father murdered (not simply threw heartbreak at him) his parents? What a fool.

The real laugh came when Lana told Clark that he can't kill Lex. The scene was so sickening that I've wiped most of it from my mind, but the gist of the lecture was, 'I am the great Lana Lang, listen to my powerful words. You are Clark Kent, you don't kill people because you are good. We've both had our hearts broken, but because I am more wise than you I am telling you to not kill, instead of you telling me to not kill, or even both of us deciding not to kill this man over what he has done to us!'. What the hell is wrong with that scene? No, what isn't wrong with that scene? I'm so extremely disappointed by all of this.

Thoughts?

[Jawth]

While I agree with you that Lana, the one who HAS tried to kill Lex, repeatedly fornicated with Clark's enemies, and tortured Lana suddenly became the moral compass of the show, Lionel killed Ollie's parents, NOT Lex.

[Sunny8]

What I thought was bad was that Clark didn't want Oliver to kill Lex but then he turns around and wants to do the same thing because of Lana.

[ClarksGal]

Yes.

[j-kent]

I don't agree here...As Clark is feeling his rush of emotions rage, anger, hurt- his human aspects shine through in an instant. But I do not believe that when it came down to it- at the moment Lex would be before him- he would actually do it...and that's all that matters. In other media and continuations, Superman has come to a thin line on taking a life but stops knowing what he stands for.

All we saw were his emotions.....if anything I thought it rooted him to his human side and essentially was more realistic. Realistic in that people are capable of doing many things when they're love becomes intangible or torn away. Realistic in that people feel things and say things simply because of emotion. But there's a fine line between saying something and carrying it out.

The one thing about being human (for Clark feeling like a human) is that emotion can powerfully override logic and rationale.

When he reaches the epiphany of his maturation then I would expect the man of steel to never even think once about taking a life in vain.

[krpto]

yes lana should have been the one to want to kill lex not clark. clark should be the rock that won't kill no matter what not lana.

[moviefan2k4]

Clark almost killed Tim Prescott for murdering Alicia Baker in Season 4's "Pariah", but Lois (thankfully) talked him out of it.

[MrZeppo]

I was irritated he was getting lectured again by her. Having Lana back has proven to be nothing like I had hoped, with her lecturing Clark and Ollie on what it means to be a hero, especially when months earlier she tried to kill Lex with Clark's powers.

I've never been a real fan of the saying "Lanaville", but because this is Lana and KK's swan song, I think they ended up pandering to her character at the expense of other characters. I understand why so many people were pissed, her arc makes her look holier than thou while lecturing others.

Bah, so much for the hope of them just parting ways as adults. Nope, instead we get Dramaville.

[pizzahead2490]

lana is GOD remember guys :rolleyes:

[MAN-of-STEEL]

It is hypocritical. She's always wanted to kill Lex. This is writers making Lana out to be the voice of reason. Which is pathetic cause she's killed her own clone.

[the_kryptonian]

First.... I appreciate the fine acting talent of Kristin Kreuk and Tom Welling. Be it known that I do not loathe the character Lana Lang, I merely feel she has become a rather unbelievable character, even for a world of superhumans/aliens. She has long since season 6 become part of a superfluous storyline which held Clark BACK because he just couldn't let anything go and move on. Now I'm all for strong female lead characters, I swear to God I am, and Lana has had very strong moments in the series. This arc, this "finale" for her character.... it is complete nonsense and both she and Clark deserve better!
Does that mean I think they should have had more time together? Hell's Bells, no! THe only good Lana could serve at this stage in Clark's life and path is to test his ability to let go... Clark has failed miserabley and I have never *ever* felt more ashamed for the writing of this series. Since Lana seemingly made an ultimate sacrifice and left so Clark could do what was in his power to save the world, he has gotten off his whiny butt and grown up amazingly... even trusting Jor-El in that great moment in which he finally refers to him as "Father.." ...... it has been FANTASTIC progress for the character and story......... and now this poor copout of an ending. In one fell swoop, the powers that be castrated Clark.. AGAIN... and gave neither he nor Lana an honorable close to their story.
had they decided to seperate mutually, or Clark made seemingly the boldest move ever on this show and just refused Lana... cause let's face it, apparently nobody can say no to her which is absolute rubbish... I would be bowing to the powers that be and thanking them for excellent character arc for their two important characters. Finally Clark would show us all that he was strong enough to move FORWARD with his life, and Lana could still be the same independant woman we all know and...know....

so thanks a truckload for nothing, Smallville writers/powers that be....... you have once again fully emasculated Clark Kent and made him nothing more than a tool. Tom Welling, you deserve a hell of a lot better than this. And so do you, Kristen Kreuk.

also, my apologies to whomever my rant offends. I pride myself in training to be a writer and from that standpoint I see it as a real cheat.

[moviefan2k4]

she's killed her own clone.Just curious, but how do you kill an already-lifeless corpse with (apparently) not even a heartbeat? Lex even confirmed it himself, that Lana's double "was never alive".

[davidbrenton]

Yes, it's another "amazing" episode when Clark RELEARNS his "#1 Rule" AGAIN!!!!

[MAN-of-STEEL]

Just curious, but how do you kill an already-lifeless corpse with (apparently) not even a heartbeat? Lex even confirmed it himself, that Lana's double "was never alive".


MY HUMBLE APOLOGIES:rolleyes: that slipped my mind. I promise it won't happen again.:lol:

you have to forgive me I don't sit and memorize quotes

[sithius]

Sorry for the mistake with Lex's and Ollie's parents, fixed it now. That makes it even worse, actually.

And as for Pariah, he was 17 then whereas he's 21 now. He should have grown up a lot more. If he is willing to kill someone over his own heartbreak (no one is even dead remember, unlike Alicia) then how many more years is it going to take before he follows his own advice in Legion and dons the tights?

[Dom20]

I still don't get why this Clark guy is suppose to be this great Superman? He wants to murder Lex for not killing Lana. Yeah he ruined his future chances of sex but I hardly doubt that justifies murdering someone. I mean Batman didn't kill Joker in the Dark Knight even though he killed Rachel like nothing. Sorry but when Batman beats Superman in integrity then you got a real problem here.

[WalterK]

They were showing Clark's struggle with his human side, which is fine. What is not fine was Lana lecturing Clark. After Lana satisfied her thrist for power, she automatically became worthy of power, a model for all superheroes, and an all-around nice person. Sorry, but this is supposed to be the story of Clark becoming the world's greatest superhero, not some some idiot being taught by Lana, the former psycho.

[costas22]

That's the thing.He is not Superman yet.That's why i am saying that this show is pointless after season 5.Because for the past 3 years they have been trying to keep Clark grounded physically and emotionally when in reality he should have already become Superman.Anyway,seeing as he is still not Superman,i think that they are trying to show that he is unable to control his emotions all the time.In the Dark Knight,Batman was more established as a superhero than Smallville's Clark.And it's not just his chances of sex.We are talking about his first true love so any time he feels like that is threatened,he might act immaturely.Everyone of course is right about Lana lecturing all the time.

[Mickey_Bickey]

The question is what wasn't ridiculous about this episode?

The answer to that was Oliver. He saw through Lana like a glass window. I was embarrassed for Tom Welling in this. I feel for the guy, and the acting was off completely with the exception of the Toyman, JH and AM.

I mean even Chloe's character didn't even once mention her husband.

The made Clark Kent look stupid plain and simple so that Lana Lang could look like the ultimate sage and heroine. I'm putting these episodes right up there with Thirst and Spell. I'll be looking forward to seeing the real Clark Kent/Superman when the new episodes air.

[Superman's_Wife]

Guys, last night Lana Lang was clearly Superman. Clark was reduced to a mere mortal lacking a solid moral compass. *rolls eyes*

[Dom20]

That's the thing.He is not Superman yet.That's why i am saying that this show is pointless after season 5.Because for the past 3 years they have been trying to keep Clark grounded physically and emotionally when in reality he should have already become Superman.Anyway,seeing as he is still not Superman,i think that they are trying to show that he is unable to control his emotions all the time.In the Dark Knight,Batman was more established as a superhero than Smallville's Clark.And it's not just his chances of sex.We are talking about his first true love so any time he feels like that is threatened,he might act immaturely.Everyone of course is right about Lana lecturing all the time.

Threatened? shes stronger than him now. She has all his powers and none of his weaknesses. I'm sorry he's been out of College for how many years, witnessed the death of his father, and basically living on his own what else needs to happen for him to mature. Plus wasn't it only a few episodes ago where he was the moral compass for a crooked cop who also had problems with murder. Consistency is all I ask. It ain't much I just don't want my ability to think insulted everytime I watch this show.

[Iluvgreen]

I thought it was dumb that he tried to kill.

[Fish1941]

'Lex has separated us, I WILL KILL HIM!'

What happened to the man of steel (admittedly he isn't there yet but he should be close enough by now) not killing, no matter what? In Kingdom Come the Joker batters Lois and Jimmy to death and he doesn't kill him. Yet we have a bit of heartbreak here and he's willing to go and kill Lex? Right. I can just about buy it if Lana was killed (at a massive stretch), because he's still young, but the fact that no one is even dead is just ridiculous. How is this idiot supposed to become Superman in the next few years with an attitude like this? And he dares to condemn Ollie for wanting to kill Lex who's father murdered (not simply threw heartbreak at him) his parents? What a fool.

The real laugh came when Lana told Clark that he can't kill Lex. The scene was so sickening that I've wiped most of it from my mind, but the gist of the lecture was, 'I am the great Lana Lang, listen to my powerful words. You are Clark Kent, you don't kill people because you are good. We've both had our hearts broken, but because I am more wise than you I am telling you to not kill, instead of you telling me to not kill, or even both of us deciding not to kill this man over what he has done to us!'. What the hell is wrong with that scene? No, what isn't wrong with that scene? I'm so extremely disappointed by all of this.

Thoughts?

Oh come on! This is nothing knew. Clark has shown a capacity for hypocricy so many times, I cannot even keep count.


Because for the past 3 years they have been trying to keep Clark grounded physically and emotionally when in reality he should have already become Superman.


He has to be grounded emotionally, if he wants to be Superman.

[sithius]

No, it wasn't ridiculous. What is wrong with you? Are you actually condoning the possibility of Clark Kent committing cold blooded murder? It's bad enough that Oliver Queen did it. I really have no tolerance for people who believe it's okay to murder someone, because they're "evil". That's not dispensing justice. That's accepting evil into your heart.

Good grief!!!:mad:






He has to be grounded emotionally, if he wants to be Superman.

*facepalm*

Did you even read my post properly?

[costas22]

Consistency is all I ask. It ain't much I just don't want my ability to think insulted everytime I watch this show. <!-- / message -->

Join the club.Did you notice how much Oliver changed his routine about killing criminals from Bulletproof?I love this show but the inconsistencies are becoming too much.

He has to be grounded emotionally, if he wants to be Superman. <!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->

Bad use of words from me.What i meant was that as Superman he won't let his emotions cloud his judgment.

[devilneedsaride]

I think this is an all-time low for Clark's character. Losing it over having someone you love die, like with Alicia, is one thing. That I can see. But deciding that you want to kill someone over BREAKING UP YOUR RELATIONSHIP? I don't know who this guy is, but he is not and cannot become Superman. I don't care if he's young (he's not), I don't care if he's hurting, Superman has a better innate moral compass than that. Heck, I have a better innate moral compass than that. Anything else I could stomach, but this total destruction of Clark's moral character has me seriously considering dropping the show altogether.

[thehenry89]

Every single person on this show with two exceptions: Lois and Shelby, are Hypocrites.

[MetropolisGirl4SV]

Consistency that went out the window a long time ago. I agree I feel sorry for TW to play a Character that has no integrity in his word or his actions. Just another blow to Clark Kent to put Lana Lang on a Pedestal. It's become the name of the game on Smallville...:\

[Alania]

Luke, this is Lana FREAKING Lang we're talking about! Honestly, what is plausible and NOT ridiculous about that character??!! Not even the HAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[Timester]

I found ridiculous Lana having found Clark so fast. Lana didn't knew where he was.

[Superman's_Wife]

Every single person on this show with two exceptions: Lois and Shelby, are Hypocrites.

I love Superman's wife. She's a scoop of awesome with a wild cherry on the top! :)

----- Added 1 Minutes later -----

I found ridiculous Lana having found Clark so fast. Lana didn't knew where he was.

So many things did not make sense in this episode. You literally had to suspend all rational thought to enjoy it. And since I never willingly do that, watching last night's episode was as bad as getting teeth pulled! Which I have done twice in the past, and boy does it hurt!!! Yeeeouch!

[Tompouce]

The made Clark Kent look stupid plain and simple so that Lana Lang could look like the ultimate sage and heroine. I'm putting these episodes right up there with Thirst and Spell. I'll be looking forward to seeing the real Clark Kent/Superman when the new episodes air.
Exactly, Clark was the stooge of Lana in the 2 last episodes. We know he will never kill someone. He has always told it. It is his first rule code. And now, Miss Lana is here to tell you what to do ? COME ON !
Clark is the hero of the show, I trust him and I am waiting to see him as the man we like all in March.
CLARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKK, COOOOOOOOOOOOOMEEEEEEE BACKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK:p

[magic]

why do people have such a problem with killing Lex?

Oliver had it right, it had to be done but Clark was too much of a coward to do it
Oliver knew it, the Legion knew it, even Chloe knew it
when Chloe talked with Clark about being in denial she was so right
what would he have done if the Legion hadn't stuck around to help with brainiac?
you can bet he'd wait until the last moment and do nothing until it's too late
he's done the same mistake so many times already: Vessel, Apocalypse, Arctic ..
and the world has always suffered because of it

sorry but Clark Kent's greatest superpower is ignoring reality, and he learned it
from none other than Jonathan and Martha Kent.
he's not a hero, he's a naive child.
and like the Legion said, Kal-El would do whatever it takes to save the world

[Minela]

Bleh! Lana Luthor is the moral compas of the show? Give me a ****ing break!!!

[Timester]

why do people have such a problem with killing Lex?

Oliver had it right, it had to be done but Clark was too much of a coward to do it
Oliver knew it, the Legion knew it, even Chloe knew it
when Chloe talked with Clark about being in denial she was so right
what would he have done if the Legion hadn't stuck around to help with brainiac?
you can bet he'd wait until the last moment and do nothing until it's too late
he's done the same mistake so many times already: Vessel, Apocalypse, Arctic ..
and the world has always suffered because of it

sorry but Clark Kent's greatest superpower is ignoring reality, and he learned it
from none other than Jonathan and Martha Kent.
he's not a hero, he's a naive child.
and like the Legion said, Kal-El would do whatever it takes to save the world

Superman doesn't kill, it's the golden rule of his persona.

[Dominicus]

I think this is an all-time low for Clark's character. Losing it over having someone you love die, like with Alicia, is one thing. That I can see. But deciding that you want to kill someone over BREAKING UP YOUR RELATIONSHIP? I don't know who this guy is, but he is not and cannot become Superman. I don't care if he's young (he's not), I don't care if he's hurting, Superman has a better innate moral compass than that. Heck, I have a better innate moral compass than that. Anything else I could stomach, but this total destruction of Clark's moral character has me seriously considering dropping the show altogether.Exactly, I'm officially proclaiming that crap version Bizarro-retardo. I never seen a character assasination done in one episode, it almost seemed deliberate. I mean are you freaking kidding me, seriously? clark was holier-then-thou attitude, talking down to Chloe about Oliver and whatnot, and this selfish bastard decides to kill Lex after all the crap he's done. He decides his breaking point because he messed up their dating scheduling, get the hell out here. That is not superman, nor pre-superman. Then this sniveling, emasculated, childish, groveling, pitiful creature basically crawls to lana for a disguting Rouge from X-men kiss. Something's wrong with him in-general, the desperation, he has a sick obsesssion with Lana, very stalkerish and that is disturbing. It just so weak.

[Tompouce]

You are wrong magic. He is not a naive child. Yes, he is just deeply good because he believes that people can change, can have a second chance.
As many character told him his biggest weakness is also his biggest power : he believes in humanity, he loves people. Sometimes, he make the wrong choice because he doesn't want too see how evil can be the human heart. It is also a gift. Look in bulletproof, he saved Danny from the wrong way.
If everybody gives up the idea that humanity can be saved from its sins, what we are going to do ? To be ?
Clark/Superman means hope because of that. This unbelievable faith in good.
His parents are like this too, they raised him with strong values.
It is the second time Clark wanted to kill a man (remember the murder of Alicia, it was Lois who stopped him). He is like us, he can feel pain, angst, hatred (he told it to Lana in the beginning of season 7. "Love is hard but hatred is a strong feeling you can't stop". Something like that) BUT he will always be the man of good.
I am like you. Killing Lex is not a problem for me. It is like Hitler in a way. Kill a man like this and you save the world. It would be different if you have to kill an innocent to save the world. I often think it would be the hardest choice to do.
But Clark won't be the superhero we need if he kills a man, even if it is the evil. He just can not think it would save the world. Clark believes in redemption, in justice, the true one. He is thinking "if you kill a man even if he is evil then you become like him".
It can be true but we know that in real life, things are not so easy. As I said in another topic, as a mother if someone does something really bad to my son, I don't know if I would be rationnal, if the idea of killing wouldn't be a possibility, a kind of purpose. Nobody knows. As long as you don't live a situation, you can never say what you will do.
Some people say that if you forgive then the redemption is done for you and the man who has made you suffered.
Some think that when Justice says "let's kill the killer" it is right, some don't.
Some kill the killers for revenge because prison is not enough for what they have done. It happened once in France when I was a child. A man had killed the murderer of his child during the lawsuit. Who can blame him ? From what I know he had been followed in some psychatrial process but justice had found him circumstances, which is absolutely true. Some say that if you kill a killer, you are like him. I just think it is a quick judgement. It is so easy to say "I would never...". No, you don't know.
So in this crazy world, we need to see a hero who can not kill the bad people but can do all he can to stop them. It is hope without judgement. It is about love. Forgiveness. Redemption. It is SUPERMAN

----- Added 37 Seconds later -----

Superman doesn't kill, it's the golden rule of his persona.
LOL, I have made a long post and in one sentence you say exactly the same:D

[Smit6178]

It was ridiculous but not surprising. It's pretty obvious in past seasons and in interviews with the writers that the writing staff adores Lana. I always imagined it must kill them that she isn't a regular this season, and they used her five-episode story arc to have her go out as a true hero. What a load of crap!

Lana has become such a hard character to either sympathize with or to root for. She is constantly portrayed as the "perfect" woman. She has always lashed out at other characters for being deceitful but justifies all the times she had been deceitful herself and the other characters whom she's fussed out are sympathetic toward her.

After the first couple Lana episodes I thought maybe they will stay just friends, but when they kissed again I knew it all wouldn't end well. I think the show runners had Clark act more mature earlier this season more out of necessity than creativity. If Rosenbaum and Kruek were still regulars season 8 would be full of episodes like the ones we got the past couple weeks and in seasons six and seven.

[blink2matrix]

I don't agree here...As Clark is feeling his rush of emotions rage, anger, hurt- his human aspects shine through in an instant. But I do not believe that when it came down to it- at the moment Lex would be before him- he would actually do it...and that's all that matters. In other media and continuations, Superman has come to a thin line on taking a life but stops knowing what he stands for.

All we saw were his emotions.....if anything I thought it rooted him to his human side and essentially was more realistic. Realistic in that people are capable of doing many things when they're love becomes intangible or torn away. Realistic in that people feel things and say things simply because of emotion. But there's a fine line between saying something and carrying it out.

The one thing about being human (for Clark feeling like a human) is that emotion can powerfully override logic and rationale.

When he reaches the epiphany of his maturation then I would expect the man of steel to never even think once about taking a life in vain.
i agree :). Clark doesn't take a life because he believes there is good in the person. Lex not only proved that no good remains in him but he ultimately specifically did the worst/meanest thing anyone has ever done to Clark. Clark had an outburst of emotion but it's not like he showed up to the truck and blew up it up with his heat vision. When push came to shove i don't believe he would have killed Lex. He (understandably) contemplated it but considering how quickly he was talked out of it + the fact that he was shocked/sad to see the truck blow up shows that the hate in his heart wasn't fixed.

[margroks]

First, Clark is NOT still young. He's an adult and this is a lesson he claimed to have learned already.

Second, to have Nasty lana Lang who has kidnapped, tortured and killed people (a woman dies for lack of medical attention when Lana held her at ISIS) or tried to (she plotted to kill Lex, after all) be propped up as so moral she stops Clark form killing is shamful and ludicrous. She has no moral ground to stand on. That was just crap, plain and simple. Clark already realized he was wrong to think of killing Lex and Lionel before when Lana put him up to it, so this should not be a revelation to him and Lana is certainly not the one who is so righteous she has any business advising ANYONE on moral behavior. Lana shoudl be in prison and she is no hero and Clark should have tossed her out long ago instead of waht we got last night. It was a disgusting ep all ways around.

[magic]

sorry but Clark is nothing but an irresponsible coward.
what is he fighting for anyway? isn't it for the greater good? for justice?
how many people has Lex murdered and Clark did nothing about it?
superman can afford the luxury of not killing because he's invincible
and powerful enough to stop an evil without killing, but Clark just ignores it altogether.
"ok Lex, you're a murderous monster so I'm not gonna talk to you ever again."
you call this pursuing justice????

what's the point in Arctic if he's not going to learn about responsibility?
he literally let Lex take over him and give him power to rule the world
he did absolutely NOTHING to stop him. not then, and not now.
even his destiny told him it had to be done with the starblade.
and letting the story end with Oliver making the hard choice for him is pathetic.

Lionel had it right "the real test of a hero is knowing when the greater good would be served by an evil act"
Clark isn't God, he's not exempt from necessary evil
for that matter, why is it ok to kill Zod/Brainiac/DD but not Lex? because he's human? how hypocritical.
sorry but I can't see Clark as anything more than childish irresponsible and dangerous coward, he's just as detached from reality as Lex is.

[dcmarriott]

One problem I’ve had with the last several episodes is the idea that Lana is suddenly the moral compass of the show.

For the last several seasons, Lana has done some pretty dark stuff. In Void, she took drugs to see her dead parents. In Vessel, she kissed Lex as Metropolis was burning at her feet. In Nemesis, she threatened to kill Lionel. In Phantom, she faked her own death and blamed it on Lex. In Action, we discover that she has kidnapped and tortured Lionel. In Persona, she admits that she preferred Bizarro-Clark to the real thing. Even her Isis Foundation, was little more than a cover to allow her to spy on her ex-husband. She did a lot of immoral, even illegal, things over the past two years.

So what redeemed her? Spending a couple of months hanging out with Carter Bowfrey, sitting in an ice bath? I don’t buy it. If she had spent the time between Arctic and Bride at a Tibetan monastery (a popular hangout for superheroes seeking inner peace and martial arts skills), or on a vision quest in the Australian outback, or working at a hospital for AIDS orphans in Africa, or even languishing in a prison cell a-la-Count-of-Monte-Cristo, I could accept that she had learned her lesson, put her evil past behind her and become a better person. Instead, she spent those months training with an ex-soldier to be tougher, and planning to steal Lex’s Power suit. This is supposed to make her better prepared to handle superpowers? This makes her a more moral person than she was in Wrath? How? Why?

Furthermore, why does Clark still need Lana to tell him it’s wrong to kill? Hasn’t he already learned that lesson? In Exile, Jonathan dares Clark to kill him, to prove that he was raised not to kill. In Pariah, Lois talks Clark out of killing Tim Westcott, after Tim killed Alicia. In Combat, Clark has a long talk with Martha about whether he is any better than the phantoms that he is forced to kill. It appears that the Clark gets a lesson in morality every other year. Shouldn’t he have learned it by now? In fact, wasn’t one of the original themes of Smallville that Jonathan and Martha had raised Clark to have small town values? Shouldn’t he have learned “Thou Shalt Not Kill” seven seasons ago?

At this stage in his career, Clark should be giving moral lessons, not taking them.

Furthermore, when Clark is shown being taught the same lesson over and over, and then still needing to learn it again later, then he comes across as, well, a little slow. If he ever gets around to taking his krytponian training at the Fortress of Solitude, I hope that Jor-El included a remedial version of the program, because I’m starting to think that Clark might need it.

[ZODisGOD]

Lana stopping Clark from killing is perfectly understandable and I'm fine with that. I remember watching Superman TAS, and Superman sometimes loses it when something overly drastic happens, then go overboard. In the Superman TAS finale, Supergirl stopped Superman from killing Darkseid when Darkseid killed Turpin sometime before. In Requiem, it's very similar. Lex murdered Clark and Lana, so Clark lost it and attempted to assassinate Luthor.

[dcmarriott]

sorry but Clark is nothing but an irresponsible coward.
what is he fighting for anyway? isn't it for the greater good? for justice?
how many people has Lex murdered and Clark did nothing about it?
superman can afford the luxury of not killing because he's invincible
and powerful enough to stop an evil without killing, but Clark just ignores it altogether.
"ok Lex, you're a murderous monster so I'm not gonna talk to you ever again."
you call this pursuing justice????

what's the point in Arctic if he's not going to learn about responsibility?
he literally let Lex take over him and give him power to rule the world
he did absolutely NOTHING to stop him. not then, and not now.
even his destiny told him it had to be done with the starblade.
and letting the story end with Oliver making the hard choice for him is pathetic.

Lionel had it right "the real test of a hero is knowing when the greater good would be served by an evil act"
Clark isn't God, he's not exempt from necessary evil
for that matter, why is it ok to kill Zod/Brainiac/DD but not Lex? because he's human? how hypocritical.
sorry but I can't see Clark as anything more than childish irresponsible and dangerous coward, he's just as detached from reality as Lex is.

I don't think there's anything naive or cowardly about moral absolutes. While Clark has a responsibility to stop evil, that doesn't mean that he has to do evil acts himself in order to accomplish that mission. Superman has always stood for the principle that evil and injustice can be overcome by truth and justice. Superman has always stood against the concept of "necessary evil."

In Smallville itself, Lex often espoused the idea that he could acheive "the greater good" by doing evil things: Project Ares, Level 33.1, etc. Clark has to stand for the opposite point of view, that the greater good is acheived by doing good, not evil.

[ZODisGOD]

I don't think there's anything naive or cowardly about moral absolutes. While Clark has a responsibility to stop evil, that doesn't mean that he has to do evil acts himself in order to accomplish that mission. Superman has always stood for the principle that evil and injustice can be overcome by truth and justice. Superman has always stood against the concept of "necessary evil."

In Smallville itself, Lex often espoused the idea that he could acheive "the greater good" by doing evil things: Project Ares, Level 33.1, etc. Clark has to stand for the opposite point of view, that the greater good is acheived by doing good, not evil.

Absolutely

[magic]

truth and justice? Clark has never pursued neither when it comes to Lex

besides the "absolute" stance is delusional, even God is known for miracles as well as punishment.
good an evil is about balance, everybody knows that.

[Cogito17]

I think it was good proof of Lex's ability to challenge Clark morally. He was able to push Clark far enough to the point that he almost forced him to break his own rules.

Also, I always find it ironic how people talk about Superman's "humanity", but when Clark has an emotional human reaction, everyone gets angry with him about it. It's not necessarily the "right" reaction, but it's an understandable one. I also enjoy the irony with which the word "justice" gets thrown around as well, considering that the U.S. justice system would likely condemn Lex to death (though obviously, Clark should not be judge, jury, and executioner).

I think the episode highlighted the difficulty of deciding to take a life. Both Ollie and Chloe have done so with varying levels of remorse. Clark was also faced with this decision, what he would have done without interference from Lana is unknown. Overall, it certainly didn't make Clark look good, but given his speech to Chloe during the episode, it's clear that he was close to making a rash, emotional decision, which, to me, was understandable.

[I_am_LEX]

i think what we are missing is that Lex wasn't really there anyways. So he couldnt have killed him. we've seen him be angry and all that before, its nothing new. It only appeared that Lana stopped him but she can't stop him from something that he couldnt have done anyways...get what im saying? and remember what Jor-El keeps telling him about human learned emotions... it clouds his judgment. something he'll learn to control as he gets closer to being superman. clark's not perfect, nor should we think he is.

[devilneedsaride]

Also, I always find it ironic how people talk about Superman's "humanity", but when Clark has an emotional human reaction, everyone gets angry with him about it.

While we want Superman to seem human and therefore empathetic, we still want him to be on the good side of things. We've got a host of other heroes for moral ambiguity, Superman's whole shtick has always been that he's got a downright insane moral compass. And the thing is, his reaction here is not something that I could see from your average nonevil human being. If Lex had killed Lana? Yeah, that's understandable. If Lex had cut off her arm or something, maybe, I can sort of see that. But all Lex did was break them up. People get broken up with every day without going on killer rampages. All this is making the future Superman look less moral/good/etc than the people he's supposedly protecting and being a role model for.

[sari_chem]

I don't think it was ridiculous for Lana not to want Clark to kill Lex. Even though she wanted to do it in the past, she wouldn't want Clark to do it. She knows that Clark Kent does not kill, and she knows that he would never forgive himself if he killed Lex. She stopped Clark for Clark's sake.

[Tompouce]

Luke, this is Lana FREAKING Lang we're talking about! Honestly, what is plausible and NOT ridiculous about that character??!! Not even the HAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
I like so much the non excessive post:rotfl:;)

[MetroGirl06]

First.... I appreciate the fine acting talent of Kristin Kreuk and Tom Welling. Be it known that I do not loathe the character Lana Lang, I merely feel she has become a rather unbelievable character, even for a world of superhumans/aliens. She has long since season 6 become part of a superfluous storyline which held Clark BACK because he just couldn't let anything go and move on. Now I'm all for strong female lead characters, I swear to God I am, and Lana has had very strong moments in the series. This arc, this "finale" for her character.... it is complete nonsense and both she and Clark deserve better!
Does that mean I think they should have had more time together? Hell's Bells, no! THe only good Lana could serve at this stage in Clark's life and path is to test his ability to let go... Clark has failed miserabley and I have never *ever* felt more ashamed for the writing of this series. Since Lana seemingly made an ultimate sacrifice and left so Clark could do what was in his power to save the world, he has gotten off his whiny butt and grown up amazingly... even trusting Jor-El in that great moment in which he finally refers to him as "Father.." ...... it has been FANTASTIC progress for the character and story......... and now this poor copout of an ending. In one fell swoop, the powers that be castrated Clark.. AGAIN... and gave neither he nor Lana an honorable close to their story.
had they decided to seperate mutually, or Clark made seemingly the boldest move ever on this show and just refused Lana... cause let's face it, apparently nobody can say no to her which is absolute rubbish... I would be bowing to the powers that be and thanking them for excellent character arc for their two important characters. Finally Clark would show us all that he was strong enough to move FORWARD with his life, and Lana could still be the same independant woman we all know and...know....

so thanks a truckload for nothing, Smallville writers/powers that be....... you have once again fully emasculated Clark Kent and made him nothing more than a tool. Tom Welling, you deserve a hell of a lot better than this. And so do you, Kristen Kreuk.

also, my apologies to whomever my rant offends. I pride myself in training to be a writer and from that standpoint I see it as a real cheat.

Nice post, I completely agree with you!

[Coyote]

Lana was vastly more mature than Clark. Superman is going to kill somebody because they caused him to break up with his girlfriend? Really? Clark is a retarded child who will never be worthy of his powers.

[Skaterpen357]

Ooooooh man. I might not have had such a problem with this scene, what with his "humanity" taking over and whatnot, but there were two main problems for me.

First off, as nearly everyone has pointed out, freaking LANA helped him see the light. Torturous, villainous, crazy Lana. It's insulting.

Second, I mean...wow. Does anyone (HINT: the writers) even remember the Season Six finale? The one where Lex actually supposedly killed Lana? Where Clark shoved him into a wall and yelled at him for half a minute? Where he didn't kill him, or even try to kill him? Where he later tried to save him from the Bizarro phantom? Where he forgot about it next episode?

Remember this episode where Lex made Lana dump Clark? The one where Clark then immediately attempted murder upon Lex?

There's inconsistency, and then there's just complete and utter nonsensicality. I mean, wow. WOW.

[All about Clark]

I don't agree here...As Clark is feeling his rush of emotions rage, anger, hurt- his human aspects shine through in an instant. But I do not believe that when it came down to it- at the moment Lex would be before him- he would actually do it...and that's all that matters. In other media and continuations, Superman has come to a thin line on taking a life but stops knowing what he stands for.

All we saw were his emotions.....if anything I thought it rooted him to his human side and essentially was more realistic. Realistic in that people are capable of doing many things when they're love becomes intangible or torn away. Realistic in that people feel things and say things simply because of emotion. But there's a fine line between saying something and carrying it out.

The one thing about being human (for Clark feeling like a human) is that emotion can powerfully override logic and rationale.

When he reaches the epiphany of his maturation then I would expect the man of steel to never even think once about taking a life in vain.

Nice post, and spot on.

[SGuthrie27]

It was ridiculous. Not that Lana was a voice of reason, because I truly believe that she has matured quite a bit since Season 7 (and a TON since the several seasons before that), but that Clark had done a complete 180 and was rushing off to get his ultimate revenge on Lex after taking such a definitive no-killing stance in "Legion" and earlier in this episode (when he needlessly bashed and belittled Chloe -- see my thread on page four of this forum).

--SGuthrie ><>' :)--

[NotTodayPete]

I thought she should have helped him

[smallvillerocks45]

I don't agree here...As Clark is feeling his rush of emotions rage, anger, hurt- his human aspects shine through in an instant. But I do not believe that when it came down to it- at the moment Lex would be before him- he would actually do it...and that's all that matters. In other media and continuations, Superman has come to a thin line on taking a life but stops knowing what he stands for.

All we saw were his emotions.....if anything I thought it rooted him to his human side and essentially was more realistic. Realistic in that people are capable of doing many things when they're love becomes intangible or torn away. Realistic in that people feel things and say things simply because of emotion. But there's a fine line between saying something and carrying it out.

The one thing about being human (for Clark feeling like a human) is that emotion can powerfully override logic and rationale.

When he reaches the epiphany of his maturation then I would expect the man of steel to never even think once about taking a life in vain.

This is what I think as well. Throughout that scene all I could think was that Clark would never actually go through with it. Lana perhaps may have done something she'd regret had she seen him (since she has threatened the life of a seriously injured person before; it's not a stretch to think she might do it again), but Clark would have seen the pathetic state Lex was in, and sure, he might've wanted to kill him instead of just throwing him into Belle Reeve, but at the end of it Clark knows better. He didn't kill that mugger in Vengeance because he heard his father's voice - I have a feeling he'd hear that same voice had he actually confronted Lex.

[Griffin]

Lana was vastly more mature than Clark. Superman is going to kill somebody because they caused him to break up with his girlfriend? Really? Clark is a retarded child who will never be worthy of his powers.

I think it had to more with all the crap Lex has done to people in general that pushed Clark to almost killing him.

[davidbrenton]

I thought it was. They really didn't need it, although maybe they did to cement the fact he really hates Lex now.

[Bizarrolover]

I don't think Clark was going to kill Lex. I'm sure he would have stopped before hurting him. But Lana had to jump in front of him first and make him look like a vengeful jerk. Anyway, Lex wasn't even inside that truck, so all that cheap melodrama was for nothing.

[Griffin]

'Lex has separated us, I WILL KILL HIM!'

What happened to the man of steel (admittedly he isn't there yet but he should be close enough by now) not killing, no matter what? In Kingdom Come the Joker batters Lois and Jimmy to death and he doesn't kill him. Yet we have a bit of heartbreak here and he's willing to go and kill Lex? Right. I can just about buy it if Lana was killed (at a massive stretch), because he's still young, but the fact that no one is even dead is just ridiculous. How is this idiot supposed to become Superman in the next few years with an attitude like this? And he dares to condemn Ollie for wanting to kill Lex who's father murdered (not simply threw heartbreak at him) his parents? What a fool.

The real laugh came when Lana told Clark that he can't kill Lex. The scene was so sickening that I've wiped most of it from my mind, but the gist of the lecture was, 'I am the great Lana Lang, listen to my powerful words. You are Clark Kent, you don't kill people because you are good. We've both had our hearts broken, but because I am more wise than you I am telling you to not kill, instead of you telling me to not kill, or even both of us deciding not to kill this man over what he has done to us!'. What the hell is wrong with that scene? No, what isn't wrong with that scene? I'm so extremely disappointed by all of this.

Thoughts?

Remember that Kingdom Come is an Elseworlds tale. The final issue of 52 reveals that Earth-22 is the designation of the Kingdom Come alternate universe. In other words Kingdome Come Superman is not our Superman. Our Superman has killed when it was absolutely necessary. He had to kill Doomsday, and he also had to kill an alternate version of General Zod and his two cohorts before they killed everyone on Earth.

Honestly I'm sick and tired of this "no killing anyone" clause. It's stupid because sometimes the only way to stop a foe (like Doomsday) is to kill them.

[Kid Collins]

Guys, last night Lana Lang was clearly Superman. Clark was reduced to a mere mortal lacking a solid moral compass. *rolls eyes*

Clark may be the future Superman, but he's far from perfect.

Remember he was about to kill Lionel in Phantom until MM stopped him.

So MM calls out Clark it's okay, but if Lana does it....she's regressing Clark.

Anyway, from what I remember from this scene, Lana warned Clark not to see Lex because he might end up killing him. Lana knows Clark wasn't intending to kill him but she wasn't sure his anger wouldn't get the best of him.

[magic]

Honestly I'm sick and tired of this "no killing anyone" clause. It's stupid because sometimes the only way to stop a foe (like Doomsday) is to kill them.
exactly, I mean when Clark kills an alien nobody complains but when it's a human he's suddenly this awful person?
Clark has killed at least 10 aliens already

[HalJordan4184]

Remember that Kingdom Come is an Elseworlds tale. The final issue of 52 reveals that Earth-22 is the designation of the Kingdom Come alternate universe. In other words Kingdome Come Superman is not our Superman. Our Superman has killed when it was absolutely necessary. He had to kill Doomsday, and he also had to kill an alternate version of General Zod and his two cohorts before they killed everyone on Earth.

Honestly I'm sick and tired of this "no killing anyone" clause. It's stupid because sometimes the only way to stop a foe (like Doomsday) is to kill them.

The difference though, is that Superman actually had a mental breakdown about the pocket universe Kryptonians, because it was totally against who he was, and he was too wracked with guilt to continue his normal life. He had to exile himself from Earth, to keep from hurting other people, as his personality literally split, and that one act, drove him clinically insane for a time.

And the no killing clause, is paramount to Superman. It's what makes him who he is. He fimrly believes there is ALWAYS a way to stop a villain, that doesn't involve ending their life.

[Jawth]

sorry but Clark is nothing but an irresponsible coward.
what is he fighting for anyway? isn't it for the greater good? for justice?
how many people has Lex murdered and Clark did nothing about it?
superman can afford the luxury of not killing because he's invincible
and powerful enough to stop an evil without killing, but Clark just ignores it altogether.
"ok Lex, you're a murderous monster so I'm not gonna talk to you ever again."
you call this pursuing justice????

what's the point in Arctic if he's not going to learn about responsibility?
he literally let Lex take over him and give him power to rule the world
he did absolutely NOTHING to stop him. not then, and not now.
even his destiny told him it had to be done with the starblade.
and letting the story end with Oliver making the hard choice for him is pathetic.

Lionel had it right "the real test of a hero is knowing when the greater good would be served by an evil act"
Clark isn't God, he's not exempt from necessary evil
for that matter, why is it ok to kill Zod/Brainiac/DD but not Lex? because he's human? how hypocritical.
sorry but I can't see Clark as anything more than childish irresponsible and dangerous coward, he's just as detached from reality as Lex is.


It's not a debate whether Lex deserves to die, because he does. If he were to be trialed and put on death row, it's not like Superman would bust down the wall and save him. It's just that one man, no matter how powerful, can't go around deciding who gets to live and die unchecked.

[xrayvision]

Clark almost killed Tim Prescott for murdering Alicia Baker in Season 4's "Pariah", but Lois (thankfully) talked him out of it.

He actually did kill Wes in Prototype, but not purposely. He was trying to stop him from killing Lois and hit him with a blast of heatvision that, not even Wes with the powers granted by Lex's experimentation, could take. But I don't consider that to be murder.

[Welling_is_pretty]

I agree that it was ridiculous that once again Lana had to tell Clark not to kill. It makes my heart heavy when they do that to Superman. All I could think was "these writers need to go and read the Manchester Black arc of the Superman comics".

And yeah, totally hypocritical that Lana of all people was telling Clark not to kill Lex.

*huffs*

[BULLITT]

Clark takes off -finds Lex's transmitting location with a GPS tracker.

Lois finds Clark without a GPS tracker - riiiiiiiiiiiigt

This show must have the laziest linear thinking writers in the biz.

Maybe she has super smell.

----- Added 6 Minutes later -----

Message for Mr. Welling: Don't sign on for a ninth season, these *ahem* writers, are going to make you look like a caricature of a character.

[escout]

It's not ridiculous at all. Just look at reports of crimes and murders for any large city. You will see people charged for crimes of passion. when an individual has been hurt enough, they often react out of the anger and hurt. They do things they are ashamed of later.

Clark in his hurt over losing LANA for the last time, had reached the last straw as far as Lex was concerned. Just like Jonnathan did when he saw Lionel Luther in his barn and wanted to kill him, after his election to the senate.

Clark has emotions and feelings and isn't above taking things too far if driven past the point of rational thinking the way Clark was after Lex forced Lana to absorb the Green K.

Lana over time let go of her hatred of Lex and her desire for revenge. she in essence had recovered from her post traumatic stress syndrome, caused by discovering that she was given female hormones that made her body act pregnant. Also theknowledge of Lex's duplicity, her being an orphan and everthing else in her life that led her there, caused.

Having resolved all she was able to help and if she needed to prevent Clark from doing something he would regret all of his life. It shows that none of us are immune if we are pushed far enough, not even Superboy. It also helps us see that she has in fact matured.

I am a physician and I know PTSD. So don't try to argue this with me.

[Jawth]

That may well be true for most people. SUPERman is a different story. Don't try and say that "he's not there yet" or any of that nonsense. Superman is NOT human, therefore normal psychology and logic assiocated might not be applicable.

This is the same guy that refused to kill Lex to save the world, AFTER he had taken Lana away. This is the Clark who refused to let a vigilante kill Lionel for MURDERING her mom. This is Lana, the one who DID try and kill Lex the second she was able too, tortured Lionel AFTER he reformed, and screwed Bizarro AND Lex. She's more morally and emotionally stable than Clark? Please.

[Tompouce]

Everything was ridiculous in this arc, anyway and as Bizarrolover said it, I think Clark will have stop on his own. No need to have Lana. It is the same when she says "Clark, the world needs you". Really ? Thanks a lot, before this, we were not informed...lol

[Your Hero]

Just to note that in the comics Superman does get reminded from time to time why he can't just kill someone. He's superman but can only take so much. In fact in the comic where the joker kills lois...her dying words are for him not to cross the line and not lose who Clark Kent is. I really liked the way they tied that arc into the show a little. The writers do pay attention to the comics and Mythos occasionally :)

[Jawth]

Modern Superman has only killed once: the alternate Phantom Zone Criminals who slaughtered an entire Earth. I don't remember that from Kingdom Come, but I haven't read Johns' arc in JSA involving it yet. Even in that case though, you have someone killing his wife, not just breaking up him and his childhood girlfriend.

[Dominicus]

Just to note that in the comics Superman does get reminded from time to time why he can't just kill someone. He's superman but can only take so much. In fact in the comic where the joker kills lois...her dying words are for him not to cross the line and not lose who Clark Kent is. I really liked the way they tied that arc into the show a little. The writers do pay attention to the comics and Mythos occasionally That's a more reasonable fatal situation. He wouldn't need to be reminded over a break-up, he would most likely never stop scouring the universe to find a cure.;) And he wouldn't contradict himself in the same day.

[llk6165]

Lana is the guiding force that leads Clark to the light of goodness.

[tbird4u]

Clark would NOT have killed lex... Period... so lana didnt stop him from killing him, but she may have stopped him from beating up on him a little bit.

[Dominicus]

Clark would NOT have killed lex... Period... so lana didnt stop him from killing him, but she may have stopped him from beating up on him a little bit.Which would've probably killed him in his condition.

[tbird4u]

Which would've probably killed him in his condition.

Let me rephrase.. cause I agree... She may have stopped him from verbally abusing him, Clark would never Have done anything to him if he was in that bad of shape!!

[Skaterpen357]

I don't know...as a fan of Superman, I know he wouldn't have killed him. But since the writers had Lana stop him, I think their intent was for Clark to actually...would have killed him. (Grammar fail.)

That's the only reason I can think of. Otherwise, from a writer's standpoint, Lana stopping him was useless anyway.

[zHeN_zHeN]

Lana is the guiding force that leads Clark to the light of goodness.
:lol:

[I_am_LEX]

One more thing if someone hasn't said it already... he is not Superman. He is Clark Kent and still struggles with his learned humanity. This will slowly change from here on out but will always remain on some level. Even after his training with Jor-El, he will still have feelings for people, like Lois. He will just handle them like a true Superman because that will be who he is. He's not there yet, that's all.

[L'or]

Yeah but really... It's not the fact that he wants to kill Lex that bugs me the most (though it does), it's the reason why!!!
I mean, if he had been close to do it on the numerous occasions Lex was a total psycho and KILLED people, I would understand that he's struggling and all... But, seriously!!! For ruining their relationship? You've gotta be kiddin' me.

[miks]

I didn't read the thread, but what bugs me is he just told Ollie and Chloe not to kill yet when it has to do with Lana all bets are off! At least they had a reason to want to kill and not just because you can't be near effing Lana Lang.

[devilneedsaride]

I don't get why the writers would even put this in there. Was it like some hamhanded attempt to show how distraught he was? Cause I honestly can't figure why they'de think making Clark willing to murder over a breakup was a good idea.

[L'or]

Exactly.

[Dominicus]

One more thing if someone hasn't said it already... he is not Superman. He is Clark Kent and still struggles with his learned humanity. This will slowly change from here on out but will always remain on some level. Even after his training with Jor-El, he will still have feelings for people, like Lois. He will just handle them like a true Superman because that will be who he is. He's not there yet, that's all.
This has been said before.:) But superman always had a keen sense of selfless justice, he submitted to the rules of the world, not the kind of guy to set an example then break his own rule. He always had the qualities of superman. However, in SV they completely butchered that theme, and turned him into a weak human, not a super man. But it's not completely hopeless, because he did willingly give up his love for the world. But his weakness metaphorically was/is Lana, now that's literal. She is out the equation, now Clark can truly grow without that distraction. so, I agree, it's just a stepping stone to the man of steel.

[j-kent]

I think it was good proof of Lex's ability to challenge Clark morally. He was able to push Clark far enough to the point that he almost forced him to break his own rules.

Also, I always find it ironic how people talk about Superman's "humanity", but when Clark has an emotional human reaction, everyone gets angry with him about it. It's not necessarily the "right" reaction, but it's an understandable one. I also enjoy the irony with which the word "justice" gets thrown around as well, considering that the U.S. justice system would likely condemn Lex to death (though obviously, Clark should not be judge, jury, and executioner).

I think the episode highlighted the difficulty of deciding to take a life. Both Ollie and Chloe have done so with varying levels of remorse. Clark was also faced with this decision, what he would have done without interference from Lana is unknown. Overall, it certainly didn't make Clark look good, but given his speech to Chloe during the episode, it's clear that he was close to making a rash, emotional decision, which, to me, was understandable.

Nice post...your point was on target and especially supplemental to the idea I was trying to bring in the beginning of the thread. Clark's character has somehow become easily condemned and his actions misunderstood. For some reason to a certain population, there's no slack on Clark's rope.

The one fallacy people like to think is that Superman is the ultimate boy scout and the cookie-cutter impeccable superhero without a flaw. But many continuations have showed Superman in conflict with his principles and ethics when something drastic happens to him. About what happens to the most powerful man on earth when you hit him where it hurts. His greatness strength is his humanity and is also his weakness.

Willard Gaylen once said, " But even here I do not condemn those who only harbor feelings of hatred as much as I condemn those who act on them."

We forget that as super as Clark is and what he does and tries to stand for, he also leads a DUAL identity. That in which he lives a HUMAN lifestyle with human emotions. And what we saw were mere emotions of rage...and not the actual conduct of killing. He is somewhere inside him...still a man.

**As for Lana being a voice of reason..I think she was confident that Clark would never cross that line..but talking him down would be a good idea instead of standing there (which is understandable from here perspective- you never know what anyone is capable of). I think that's negligible..he would have come back to reality with or without her...so I guess it was in the writers' function to put her in the spotlight for her last appearance if you'd like think this way instead.

[Tompouce]

Lana is the guiding force that leads Clark to the light of goodness.
Are you serious ?:lol:

[Fractured]

You got to be realistic guys (and gals). This is emotion, we all know emotion can do some pretty ****ed up things to people in real life, I mean i can bet that every single person on this forum knows someone close to them who has been in a bad fight or worse, and they've wanted nothing more that to get revenge on the person(s) responsible at that point when they found out. True?

Off the topic, you probably heard about the Victorian Bush fires yes? Over 178 people dead because of an arsonist. If you had a relative that died in that fire, would you not want to find this arsonist and rip his head off? I know I would.

[bigblueplanet]

While we want Superman to seem human and therefore empathetic, we still want him to be on the good side of things. We've got a host of other heroes for moral ambiguity, Superman's whole shtick has always been that he's got a downright insane moral compass. And the thing is, his reaction here is not something that I could see from your average nonevil human being. If Lex had killed Lana? Yeah, that's understandable. If Lex had cut off her arm or something, maybe, I can sort of see that. But all Lex did was break them up. People get broken up with every day without going on killer rampages. All this is making the future Superman look less moral/good/etc than the people he's supposedly protecting and being a role model for.

WORD.

Especially this "Prevent killing at any cost" issue was brought up in 3 episodes almost in a row. (Legion, Bulletproof and Requiem) On each occasion, it was Clark who inspires others that there's always another choice. So in this scene, he ended up looking like he has double standards. And his motive made him look even worse. JMO

[myankskent]

WORD.

Especially this "Prevent killing at any cost" issue was brought up in 3 episodes almost in a row. (Legion, Bulletproof and Requiem) On each occasion, it was Clark who inspires others that there's always another choice. So in this scene, he ended up looking like he has double standards. And his motive made him look even worse. JMO

Agreed. Clark nearly killing Lex is another product of this show going way too long. TPTB just don't know what to do with this show anymore so they seem to enjoy torturing Clark so that he responds irrationally. It's a great way to stall this show out and it's also a great way to destroy Clark's character in the process.

[dcmarriott]

In the season 6 episode Nemesis, Lex saved Clark's life. In the season 7 episode Fracture, Clark actually goes into Lex's mind and finds his good side. Why would Clark suddenly decide that Lex no longer has a good side, and deserves to die, simply because he is trying to break up his relationship with Lana?

[loislanechick]

I think it's more than ridiculous..lana tried to kill lex in Wrath when she had clark's powers and she's trying to stop him from killing..:rotfl: I could laugh all day! Oh, wait I know what's going on..maybe lana is replacing jonathan and she's clark's new inner voice :D

[Jawth]

You got to be realistic guys (and gals). This is emotion, we all know emotion can do some pretty ****ed up things to people in real life, I mean i can bet that every single person on this forum knows someone close to them who has been in a bad fight or worse, and they've wanted nothing more that to get revenge on the person(s) responsible at that point when they found out. True?

Off the topic, you probably heard about the Victorian Bush fires yes? Over 178 people dead because of an arsonist. If you had a relative that died in that fire, would you not want to find this arsonist and rip his head off? I know I would.


Alot of people WOULD rip Lex's head from his shoulders given the situation, or at least slap him around a little. You're missing one of the most important points of the Clark/Superman character: to insire and lead by example. The last few episodes, even poorly put together, had Clark protecting cop killers and world ending threats, but when somebody breaks up him and his highschool crush, his morals suddenly don't apply anymore and has to be talked down by the least moral character on the show aside from the Luthors. That's hypocracy.

As for the fire thing, a dead relative is a lot worse than a breakup.

[Hopefulsuicide]

I didn't read the thread, but what bugs me is he just told Ollie and Chloe not to kill yet when it has to do with Lana all bets are off! At least they had a reason to want to kill and not just because you can't be near effing Lana Lang.

yeah it was ridiculous... you can't kill anyone, it's just not right... unless they do anything to Lana Lang, then they have crossed the one line that excuses murder!

LEX MUST DIE!

and before he had even tried to see if it could be reversed (which i still don't understand why it can't be reversed)

[~::PhaEj::~]

The writers would had done a huge justice to Lana's angle in Smallville and the future legacy of Superman by reversing Lana and Clark's role. Instead of having Clark getting emo and wanting to kill Lex, let it be Lana. Let the strong revenge feeling in Lana be the driving wedge between her and Clark.. not her kryptoskin.

Meh. But whatever.

[mod edit]

[SupermanRox]

She has long since season 6 become part of a superfluous storyline which held Clark BACK because he just couldn't let anything go and move on.

In one fell swoop, the powers that be castrated Clark.. AGAIN...

had they decided to seperate mutually, or Clark made seemingly the boldest move ever on this show and just refused Lana... cause let's face it, apparently nobody can say no to her which is absolute rubbish... I would be bowing to the powers that be and thanking them for excellent character arc for their two important characters. Finally Clark would show us all that he was strong enough to move FORWARD with his life, and Lana could still be the same independant woman we all know and...know....

Are you reading my mind? This is exactly my opinion. I couldn't have said it better.

[daxam77]

I loved the comment about Clark being "deeply good." Well said.

The minute I saw this scene I had to just treat it like I would a mistake in a comic book. Ignore it. Believe me, the writer will, now that he or she has used it in a scene and it's over.

Clark, "deeply good" Clark, would never ever go through with killing even if he wanted to and was really, really absolutely angry. He might threaten, start to, come within a millimeter of it, but he would always, always stop himself. If the writers don't know this by now, they really should watch the episodes of the last seven seasons and a few from this season - or read a Superman comic book.

It was a momentary lapse for the writers in an effort to give Lana a nice scene. Apparently their attitude is so what if it makes Clark look like a madman, a bully, or worse, weak. They had to make Lana all important in these two episodes.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Griffin,

Honestly I'm sick and tired of this "no killing anyone" clause. It's stupid because sometimes the only way to stop a foe (like Doomsday) is to kill them.

I hear you loud and clear. The no killing clause is stupid because it make Clark partially responsible for the innocents that are killed when he refuses to take out the evil villain.

And in the Smallville universe it makes no sense since Clark and just about everyone in the cast has killed at one time or another.

And finally just because you kill you are not guilty of murder.

For example Lana Lang killed Buffy the Vampire Leader, she did not murder her.

Buffy was coming at Lana Lang with intent to harm but simply didn’t know that due to biting Clark Lana was more than just an “ordinary” vampire.

And again Lana Lang did not murder Genevieve Teague. Isabel killed her and there is an argument that Isabel is not guilt of murder but self defense since Genevieve Teague pointed a gun at her.

When Lana Lang kicked Morgan Edge’s henchman onto the pitchfork in the Kent’s barn she was also innocent of murder. The henchman was armed and coming at her so that is self defense and defense of innocents ie the Kents.

If Lana Lang is guilty of murder due to the above then just about everyone on Smallville is a murderer.

For example: Lois and Clark together killed (barbecued & electrocuted) Trent the kid with the metal blades for arms.

In the pilot episode Clark dropped a ton of metal on bug boy and later in the first season “kills?”

Sean Kelvin in the episode Cool by throwing him into the lake which freezes.

Clark kills Wes in Prototype with a blast of heat vision to save Lois.

Clark kills sentient beings like Gloria in Wither when using heat vision he makes a sprinkler burst over the lights in the greenhouse and thus electrocuting Gloria and causing her to vaporize.

Then in Combat in a direct hand to hand fight Clark kills Titan. And no it is not an accident (no matter what Mommy Kent says) when Clark seeks out Titan and willingly with intent to do harm steps into a ring to fight. It is not murder but neither can it be labeled an accident.

Also the powers that be sometimes use someone else killing to save Clark as a “get out of jail free card” for Clark killing. The Martian Manhunter twice had to kill sentient beings ie Aliens/Zoners to save Clark’s life.

Then Lana had to kill Bizzaro in order to save Clark.

Even Chloe has killed on the show when she shoots Gabriel in the missile silo in an attempt to stop the launch of the nuclear missile and thus save Smallville.

Considering the body count on Smallville I am sure there are several other examples.

All the best,

Cheers, Mountain Sniper

[sithius]

MountainSniper, who are you to judge Superman (yes I know he's fictional but regardless)? It's not like the character chose to use his powers to protect people, influence humanity for the better and make all of them more aware of their potential.. oh wait.

If Superman decided to start killing villains, then I can assure you that it would be disastrous. Humanity would see a murderous alien, people would call for his removal (he is not a judge) and where would Superman draw the line in who gets it? He'd become nothing more than a vigilante swooping down to snap the defenseless criminals neck. He would be disgusting, in my opinion anyway, and certainly not a role model.

What makes Superman so strong is his inability to completely crumble. He's like a brick wall. In one comic arc, the murder of Zod and his gang caused him to leave Earth in fear of killing anyone again. That's the Superman I know. If you want some crazy, bloodthirsty vigilante then go look elsewhere, because you won't find one here.

[tj_powers]

MountainSniper, who are you to judge Superman (yes I know he's fictional but regardless)? It's not like the character chose to use his powers to protect people, influence humanity for the better and make all of them more aware of their potential.. oh wait.

If Superman decided to start killing villains, then I can assure you that it would be disastrous. Humanity would see a murderous alien, people would call for his removal (he is not a judge) and where would Superman draw the line in who gets it? He'd become nothing more than a vigilante swooping down to snap the defenseless criminals neck. He would be disgusting, in my opinion anyway, and certainly not a role model.

What makes Superman so strong is his inability to completely crumble. He's like a brick wall. In one comic arc, the murder of Zod and his gang caused him to leave Earth in fear of killing anyone again. That's the Superman I know. If you want some crazy, bloodthirsty vigilante then go look elsewhere, because you won't find one here.


I agree to you. Superman was always trying to find other means to battle and win against even the worst of ennemies. So even in this show he has to keep some strong morale to not kill and show the world any resolve doesnt need murder.

[dcmarriott]

The law, and most codes of morality, recognize that there are times when killing another person is justified, notwithstanding the general prohibition against murder. Usually, justification arises because of necessity, i.e. the person is facing a “kill or be killed” scenario.

Superman is held to a higher standard because his abilities mean he has options that other characters don’t, and seldom faces a situation of true necessity. His invulnerability means he cannot be killed. His speed and strength mean that he can overcome and subdue an opponent that others might have to kill. He almost always has options, and does not need to kill in order to save himself or others.

To suggest that Clark should not be condemned for killing, simply because others have had to do so, really amounts to holding Clark to a lesser standard than other characters in Smallville. Clark was raised by people who believed in the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”, and the show should continue to show Clark as someone who believes that he should never kill. If circumstances mean that there is no other solution, then so be it. However, it goes against seventy years of tradition for Clark to be shown as someone who can casually accept the death of another human being, even someone who has wronged him.

[lois346]

Yeah it was dumb. What made it even more dumb is that it didn't make sense that she didn't want Clark to kill him. Because last season she was the one that wanted him dead and Clark looked at her like what the hell is wrong with you?

[Cychotec]

Well, alot of you seem really convinced that Clarks intention when he tracked down Lex's truck was to murder him... I don't agree, he wanted to stop him "Lex needs to be STOPPED!" that doesn't nessecarily mean killed. Lana stopped him because she was justifiably worried that Clark in his enraged state might end up killing Lex even if it wasn't his intention. Also I don't think Lana was so much worried about Lex as she was about how Clark would feel about himself if he had Lex's blood on his hands. I also don't believe for a second that Lex actually died in that truck.

[MountainSniper]

Hi Sithius,

MountainSniper, who are you to judge Superman (yes I know he's fictional but regardless)? .

No special reason, just a fan like everyone else.

If Superman decided to start killing villains, then I can assure you that it would be disastrous.

Really? So what is more disastrous than the destruction of the human race due to Clark refusing to follow Jor-el’s advice and kill a mass murdering psycho whose body is being prepared to be a vessel for a Kryptonian mass murdering psycho?

Humanity would see a murderous alien; people would call for his removal

What people would this be after Brainiac/Zod destroys humanity because Clark decided not to follow his Kryptonian daddy’s plan but instead just wing it and hope luck, circumstance and fate saves the day?

Clark didn’t stop Zod by anything but luck, circumstance and fate such as Raya just happened to be in the phantom zone and knew how to exit etc.

Clark risked the future of human race simply because he wouldn’t follow Jor-el’s plan to SAVE the human race from Zod/Brainiac.

and where would Superman draw the line in who gets it?

Let’s start with the obvious and work back: First off how about when the fate of humanity is a stake and you are up against super powered aliens/super intelligent but evil alien artificial intelligence.

Then look at the next case and engage your own common sense & a sprinkle on top a bit of Spock’s pop culture philosophy: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

The people that seem to have such trouble with such concepts are usually politically correct academics in some ivory tower, the so called expert 'talking heads' on CNN and of course the self righteous types safe at home watching the disaster on TV.

He'd become nothing more than a vigilante swooping down to snap the defenseless criminals neck. He would be disgusting, in my opinion anyway, and certainly not a role model.

No one said Clark should be killing left and right ordinary criminals like a super powered Robo cop. Those are your words and not mine.

However when the fate of humanity is hanging by a thread that is not time to kick the knowledge, experience and logic of your Krypton daddy’s plan to the curb just because it requires you to destroy a mass murdering psycho who is above the rule of law.

The whole of humanity is more important than one mass murdering psycho’s life.

BTW in the current politically correct, self righteous world have you ever read any George Orwell?

George Orwell quote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

All the best,

Mountain Sniper

[Lazy Boy]

In response to the topic of the thread:

Not really, the man is still learning so he is bound to trip up a couple of times before he becomes a fully fledged Superman.

As for the point that Lana was the one who stopped him, I know that smacks of hypocrisy considering that Lana (supposely) tried to kill Lex herself but I think that point in his blind fury, Lana would have been the only person that Clark would have listened to because she was part of the equation that set him off.

[jlbtjb316]

I don't think it was hypocritical of Lana to remind Clark why he should not go after Lex at that moment. Clark had once done the same for her. Some seem to feel that she can never be redeemed or forgiven for her past mistakes, but after the last few episodes of last season and after this arc, I think that Lana has demonstrated that she has learned from her mistakes. I think she now knows that in her desire to protect Clark and get revenge on the Luthors she almost lost herself. I think Clark helped her to take a long, hard look at herself, and he helped her refocus her life on helping others as she had always wanted to do. I don't think that Clark would have actually gone through with killing Lex. I think that Lana was simply reminding him of what they both knew and believed.

[dcmarriott]

No one said Clark should be killing left and right ordinary criminals like a super powered Robo cop. Those are your words and not mine.

However when the fate of humanity is hanging by a thread that is not time to kick the knowledge, experience and logic of your Krypton daddy’s plan to the curb just because it requires you to destroy a mass murdering psycho who is above the rule of law.

The whole of humanity is more important than one mass murdering psycho’s life.



But why should Clark have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? Even Jor-El did not execute Zod; he banished him to the Phantom Zone, and in the movies, did so only after Zod had been tried and condemned for his crimes. Zod was undoubtedly a "mass murdering psycho", and yet Kryptonian law did not condemn him to death. If Clark is going to follow his father's plan, it should include respect for the rule of law, the rights of individuals and respect for life.

Also, you sucggest that the people who have trouble with the idea of Clark killing are "ivory tower academics" or "self-righteous types safe at home." That shows incredible disrepect for people who sincerely hold religious and ethical beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. There are many people who oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, including those who work for the police, the prison system and military.

[tj_powers]

But why should Clark have the right to be judge, jury and executioner? Even Jor-El did not execute Zod; he banished him to the Phantom Zone, and in the movies, did so only after Zod had been tried and condemned for his crimes. Zod was undoubtedly a "mass murdering psycho", and yet Kryptonian law did not condemn him to death. If Clark is going to follow his father's plan, it should include respect for the rule of law, the rights of individuals and respect for life.

Also, you sucggest that the people who have trouble with the idea of Clark killing are "ivory tower academics" or "self-righteous types safe at home." That shows incredible disrepect for people who sincerely hold religious and ethical beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. There are many people who oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, including those who work for the police, the prison system and military.

I agree to that! If kryptonians banished criminals to the Phantom Zone which to them is an equivilant of being sent to Alcatraz so who is for Clark to kill a man whos trying to kill and expose him. It would be more selfish on his part than anything and from what his destiny is anything other than selfish.

[dcmarriott]

George Orwell quote: “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”


And Juvenal posed the question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?")

[sithius]

Hi Sithius,
No special reason, just a fan like everyone else.~

I didn't see much in your post that invalidates my opinion, just a lot of the same but recycled again and again.

The thing is, why should a life be taken (something believed to be the most sacred thing in this world by Superman) when there is another alternative, albeit it may require more work and thinking 'outside the box' so to speak? You act as if Superman would never, ever kill, which is not the case. He killed Doomsday, and in the story 'Exile' he kills three phantom zoners, which causes him to leave Earth (mentioned this in my other post briefly). But, until the threat is immediate and Superman has no other choice but to eliminate them, he will always look for another way. What is wrong with that?

You can't expect Superman to kill people who may kill others when the threat isn't even perceived as immediate (about to happen). That's not only unjust, but reckless and despicable.

[tj_powers]

mountainsniper, do you think it would be right for YOU to kill a man who has killed many in the past or just did?? would you consider it justice to take it upon yourself to take the law into your own hands? Superman, or Clark Kent... he has the same morals as we do being raised on earth! Even with his super powers he uses it for good... no matter the cost. his rules are the same as ours, he just has a wild card in his hand.

[Snowfire]

Lana didn't want Clark to be a killer because she knew he would regret it afterwards, just like he did for her in Wrath. Their love for eachother was stronger than theur hate for Lex at that moment. Also Lana learned from her errors because of Clark, so she would be the only able to stop him, both mentally and physically.

Some of you are just unhappy how they gave Clark a moment of weakness, like Lana had and was ridiculed for last year. Lana can be hated for making mistakes but when Clark does it blasphemous and out of character. The man isn't super yet. Stop comparing him to the hero he is in the comics/movies/cartoons/etc. This is Smallville it's all about human drama and having characters discover who they are.

[Skaterpen357]

Lana didn't want Clark to be a killer because she knew he would regret it afterwards, just like he did for her in Wrath. Their love for eachother was stronger than theur hate for Lex at that moment. Also Lana learned from her errors because of Clark, so she would be the only able to stop him, both mentally and physically.

Some of you are just unhappy how they gave Clark a moment of weakness, like Lana had and was ridiculed for last year. Lana can be hated for making mistakes but when Clark does it blasphemous and out of character. The man isn't super yet. Stop comparing him to the hero he is in the comics/movies/cartoons/etc. This is Smallville it's all about human drama and having characters discover who they are. Clark has had twenty-one years (or possibly more) to discover who he is and what his morals are. He's proven himself worthy of the title "Superman" in the episode "Legion." Clark's powerful moral values are demonstrated quite dramatically and very well through his lecture to Rok after he tries to kill Chloe. It was the single most Superman-like moment on SV, in my opinion.

Aside from that, I'm seventeen, and I for one know killing = not good. It's not that huge a leap in logic, especially for someone like Clark Kent. I don't know how long it takes most people to decide you can't kill people for (physically) breaking you up with your girlfriend, but really. The man has been saving lives since he was a freshman! Don't insult his character by proclaiming he doesn't know right from wrong by this point in his life.

[sithius]

Clark has had twenty-one years (or possibly more) to discover who he is and what his morals are. He's proven himself worthy of the title "Superman" in the episode "Legion." Clark's powerful moral values are demonstrated quite dramatically and very well through his lecture to Rok after he tries to kill Chloe. It was the single most Superman-like moment on SV, in my opinion.

Aside from that, I'm seventeen, and I for one know killing = not good. It's not that huge a leap in logic, especially for someone like Clark Kent. I don't know how long it takes most people to decide you can't kill people for (physically) breaking you up with your girlfriend, but really. The man has been saving lives since he was a freshman! Don't insult his character by proclaiming he doesn't know right from wrong by this point in his life.

Indeed. It's quite laughable when you think about it in that way (see the part I highlighted in your post). If I was in Clark's situation, I'd be angry, and I would go to stop Lex but not only because of what he had just done, but everything he has done. I would not go to kill him, I'm pretty sure of that, and I don't consider myself as nearly a strong a character as Superman.

[suzieQ]

Lana didn't want Clark to be a killer because she knew he would regret it afterwards, just like he did for her in Wrath. Their love for eachother was stronger than theur hate for Lex at that moment. Also Lana learned from her errors because of Clark, so she would be the only able to stop him, both mentally and physically.

Some of you are just unhappy how they gave Clark a moment of weakness, like Lana had and was ridiculed for last year. Lana can be hated for making mistakes but when Clark does it blasphemous and out of character. The man isn't super yet. Stop comparing him to the hero he is in the comics/movies/cartoons/etc. This is Smallville it's all about human drama and having characters discover who they are.

I agree.

Their love for each other was stronger than their hate for Lex at that moment.

I love this so I quoted it.

I don't know how long it takes most people to decide you can't kill people for (physically) breaking you up with your girlfriend, but really.

Lex had a "BOMB" set up......that "bomb" was rigged to "KILL" ......not just to "break up" Clark and Lana! Clark realizes to what extremes that Lex will go to hurt him......he put lives at risk! Clark realizes that Lex is capable of doing harm, not just to separate him from Lana, but for Lex's own personal agenda. Clark knows Lex is dangerous.... but up until now Lex has gone after the Meteor Freaks and Aliens.......at that moment in Requiem, Lex put innocent people at risk. Clark also realizes that with the Prometheus suit that Lex was planning on using it (as Lana said) "as a weapon" against him. All of these realizations of Lex's motives and plans and perpetrations, causes Clark to understand that Lex must be stopped.

So no, Clark didn't just go after Lex because "he broke up with his girlfriend", it was much more than that. After all that Clark knows that Lex has done and will potentially do, it is motivation enough for Clark to think to put Lex away himself. Lana even said to Clark, that since Lex didn't get the Prometheus suit...he "had nothing to lose, and was even more dangerous". I think with the knowledge that Lex knows his secret as well, Clark can't give Lex anymore chances to escape.

[Skaterpen357]

Lex had a "BOMB" set up......that "bomb" was rigged to "KILL" ......not just to "break up" Clark and Lana! Clark realizes to what extremes that Lex will go to hurt him......he put lives at risk! Clark realizes that Lex is capable of doing harm, not just to separate him from Lana, but for Lex's own personal agenda. Clark knows Lex is dangerous.... but up until now Lex has gone after the Meteor Freaks and Aliens.......at that moment in Requiem, Lex put innocent people at risk. Clark also realizes that with the Prometheus suit that Lex was planning on using it (as Lana said) "as a weapon" against him. All of these realizations of Lex's motives and plans and perpetrations, causes Clark to understand that Lex must be stopped.

So no, Clark didn't just go after Lex because "he broke up with his girlfriend", it was much more than that. After all that Clark knows that Lex has done and will potentially do, it is motivation enough for Clark to think to put Lex away himself. Lana even said to Clark, that since Lex didn't get the Prometheus suit...he "had nothing to lose, and was even more dangerous". I think with the knowledge that Lex knows his secret as well, Clark can't give Lex anymore chances to escape. Lex never intended for that bomb to go off. It wasn't Kryptonite-powered just for the blast. It was specifically created to torture Clark into giving Lana up, because he knew Lana's suit would absorb the Kryptonite at the cost of she and Clark's relationship.

As for Lex's bold move to "innocent people," many of the meteor freaks he held captive and tortured just to learn about their abilities were "innocent." Lex was no saint before this episode, and he is in my mind barely any more evil after it. Yes, what he did to Clark and Lana was sadistic, but it wasn't a terribly "new" path for him. If Clark was truly justified in trying to kill Lex, he would've done it sometime between S5 and now. Breaking him up with Lana, though (and just physically! They could have, with difficulty, made it work without them being around each other--were their relationship so powerful and wonderful, it would not be contingent on physical interaction and super-sex), is what Clark went after Lex for; he said so himself.

Also, if you will recall, Clark specifically told Oliver not to kill Lex over his personal issues with him in "Bride." Oliver specifically reminded Clark Lex knew his secret. Clark, however, would not waver in his morals, and told him not to do anything he would later regret. All Lana did in returning to Smallville was to bring Clark to his knees and reject a half a very good season of character development and Superman-like behavior.

And if you believe that under these circumstances, Clark--Superman--would not "give Lex [any more] chances to escape," you really need to consider what Kal-El's morals and values are, not just in the comics, but in this very season of SV.

So in short, no; he was not justified in the slightest.

[jlbtjb316]

I think that Clark and Lana were between a rock and a hard place because I do think it was a real possibility that Lex would have set off the bomb. Lex probably knew that they would do the right thing and diffuse the bomb, but if they did not, I think it is possible that he would have set off the bomb thus torturing them with the neverending guilt of their decision.

[MountainSniper]

Hi dcmarriott,

But why should Clark have the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

Isn’t it obvious?

Because Clark is the only one on the scene that can execute Jor-el’s plan to stop Zod so he has to make the call.

A timely decision from Clark is required regarding destroying the vessel to safeguard the fate of humanity from a psycho Krytonian mass murderer.

Even Jor-El did not execute Zod; he banished him to the Phantom Zone, and in the movies, did so only after Zod had been tried and condemned for his crimes. Zod was undoubtedly a "mass murdering psycho", and yet Kryptonian law did not condemn him to death.

A completely irrelevant example and thus easily counter pointed.

Krypton is not earth. Zod on Krypton didn’t have superpowers and thus ultimately he was subject to the rule of Kryptonian law. Earth is an entirely different situation.

Do you really think some kinder and gentler Zod is just going to decide to turn himself over to human police and politely stand trial and accept the judgement of “primitive” human law etc. Then if convicted Clark will magically come up with some way to open up the phantom zone to exile Zod who of course in your scenario simply accepts his sentence from the primitive human race.

The harsh light of logic clues you in that Earth isn’t Krypton and thus the options available on Krypton don’t exist on earth.

If Clark is going to follow his father's plan, it should include respect for the rule of law, the rights of individuals and respect for life.

Total fantasy.

Unlike you Jor-el knows Earth doesn’t have the options available to Krypton when it comes to dealing with Zod so Jor-el’s earth plan is completely different from what was done on Krypton.

Jor-el exactly and directly tells Clark what he as to do to ensure the safety of the human race.

Proof Episode Vessel

Jor-El: There ís one way. Zod was ímprísoned ín the Phantom Zone for crímes that led to the destructíon of our planet.

Clark: Zod killed you.

Jor-El: And your mother. And our entíre race. Just as he wíll do on Earth.

Clark: I won't let that happen.

Jor-El: Zod's physícal body was destroyed to prevent hím from escapíng the Phantom Zone. He can be freed íf he fínds a body. a vessel to ínhabít. You must fínd the human vessel and destroy ít. No matter who ít may be.

Also, you sucggest that the people who have trouble with the idea of Clark killing are "ivory tower academics" or "self-righteous types safe at home." That shows incredible disrepect for people who sincerely hold religious and ethical beliefs regarding the sanctity of life.

Defending the sanctity of life also extends to sometimes being required to take life in order to defend or save innocent life. And whether or not you want to admit to it there are people in the world that react with violence of action so you can sleep soundly and safely in your bed.

There are many people who oppose capital punishment on moral grounds, including those who work for the police, the prison system and military.

Irrelevent non point you are just using as a deflection.

No one is debating the various punishments under the rule of human law.

Zod is not going to be tried in a human court of law where everyone can debate what punishment laid down by human law is moral or not.

Zod is going to destroy the human race unless he is stopped and stepping into a court room to accept sentencing is not what he is going to do so the various punishments of human law are irrelevant.

All the best,

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[Snowfire]

Lex never intended for that bomb to go off. It wasn't Kryptonite-powered just for the blast. It was specifically created to torture Clark into giving Lana up, because he knew Lana's suit would absorb the Kryptonite at the cost of she and Clark's relationship.

As for Lex's bold move to "innocent people," many of the meteor freaks he held captive and tortured just to learn about their abilities were "innocent." Lex was no saint before this episode, and he is in my mind barely any more evil after it. Yes, what he did to Clark and Lana was sadistic, but it wasn't a terribly "new" path for him. If Clark was truly justified in trying to kill Lex, he would've done it sometime between S5 and now. Breaking him up with Lana, though (and just physically! They could have, with difficulty, made it work without them being around each other--were their relationship so powerful and wonderful, it would not be contingent on physical interaction and super-sex), is what Clark went after Lex for; he said so himself.

Also, if you will recall, Clark specifically told Oliver not to kill Lex over his personal issues with him in "Bride." Oliver specifically reminded Clark Lex knew his secret. Clark, however, would not waver in his morals, and told him not to do anything he would later regret. All Lana did in returning to Smallville was to bring Clark to his knees and reject a half a very good season of character development and Superman-like behavior.

And if you believe that under these circumstances, Clark--Superman--would not "give Lex [any more] chances to escape," you really need to consider what Kal-El's morals and values are, not just in the comics, but in this very season of SV.

So in short, no; he was not justified in the slightest.

Lex's bomb was effective either way. His plan to drive Clark and Lana worked because if they did just let bomb go off then their happiness and love would have been tarnished by that decision and Lex knew his old friends well enough to know that both would choose to save the day. The man is an evil genius and this is the reason he'll become Clark arch enemy. Clark will never forget this and in that moment of passion and pain I'm sure he looked back at all his inaction and indecisiveness and lost it. After telling so many people that killing Lex would be injust Lex made him look like the biggest fool and interfered one last time in Clark and Lana's relationship. Clark had every reason to want to seek retribution and right the wrong he let live but thankfully Lana prevented him from the possibility of harming or worse killing him. Clark has faltered many times before when he's at his most vulnerable and hurt so let the man learn from his mistakes. That's how a hero is born. I think Spiderman also had a simliar reaction to his uncle being killed by a criminal he let go. So for a superhero to succumb to feelings of vengence is an apsect essential to their growth and thankfully they have people in their lives who will guided them back on their noble path.

[MountainSniper]

Hi dcmarriott,

And Juvenal posed the question, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" ("Who watches the watchmen?")

Gee I wonder what Juvenal would have said about the watchmen if he had been living a couple hundred years later when the Visgloths sacked Rome?

Well the alternative is to get rid of the watchman but then what do you do when what the watchmen were watching against happens and next thing you know you and your family are standing at the edge of a trench dug in the black soil of Choeung Ek or you are being lead off to the Gulog etc?

Edmund Bruke quote: “"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."

And Clark in this case did nothing Jor-el told him and it was only through luck, fate and circumstance that Zod was defeated.

Cheers, Mountain Sniper

----- Added 17 Minutes later -----

Hi sithius,

I didn't see much in your post that invalidates my opinion, just a lot of the same but recycled again and again.

Then count point my post?

Hey, here is an idea, instead of tell us none of my points invalidates your opinion why don’t you directly counter point my post and show how everyone how you invalidate my points!

Come on, you can do it. Give it a try!

The thing is, why should a life be taken (something believed to be the most sacred thing in this world by Superman) when there is another alternative, albeit it may require more work and thinking 'outside the box' so to speak?

Oh really, then why don’t you tell me the alternative plan you came up with to stop Zod and why it was so much more plausible than Jor-el’s plan?

When push comes to shove I personally would go with the plan the brilliant Kryptonian scientist who discovered the Phantom zone plan came up with over an Kansas City farmboy's apathy or even your plan you haven’t told us yet to defeat a Kryptonian super villain.

But hey that is just me and maybe you have a better idea.


You act as if Superman would never, ever kill, which is not the case. He killed Doomsday, and in the story 'Exile' he kills three phantom zoners, which causes him to leave Earth (mentioned this in my other post briefly).

Irrelevant point and just a defection. Superman is not even on Smallville.

We are discussing Clark Kent as he appears on Smallville ie in the Smallville universe not Superman in other media.

But, until the threat is immediate and Superman has no other choice but to eliminate them, he will always look for another way. What is wrong with that?

Who said anything is wrong with this? You are just creating a Strawman argument. These are your words and not mine.

You can't expect Superman to kill people who may kill others when the threat isn't even perceived as immediate (about to happen). That's not only unjust, but reckless and despicable.

More strawman argument from you. No one is discussing Superman but Clark Kent as he appears on Smallville.

BTW Jor-el directly warns Clark that Zod is coming and about the threat that Zod is to the human race and Clark knew Lex was being prepared so it was pretty clear the threat was not some vague theoretical one but instead Brainiac’s plan to release Zod was in play and thus immediate.

Cheers Mountain Sniper

----- Added 35 Minutes later -----

Hi tj_powers,

mountainsniper, do you think it would be right for YOU to kill a man who has killed many in the past or just did?? .

We are talking about Clark Kent on Smallville and not me in real life.

However that said I think it is obvious by now that if I was in Clark Kent’s position with the fate of humanity at risk and my super intelligent Kryptonian Daddy told me the way to save the world I would have put a .338 Lapua mag bullet through mass murderer Lex Luthor’s head while whistling show tunes and slept well afterwards.

The whole of humanity is not worth the single life a mass murdering psycho.

would you consider it justice to take it upon yourself to take the law into your own hands?

Depends on circumstances; for example in a war zone there is no civil society or rule of law so there are times where the lives of innocents depends on individual & military violence of action. On Smallville the Luthors have proven time after time that they are above the law as it exits on the TV show.

If the circumstances are same that Clark Kent faced on Smallville the TV show ie the survival of the human race vs the life of a psycho mass murderer who operates above the law then I have no issues with it.

Superman, or Clark Kent... he has the same morals as we do being raised on earth! Even with his super powers he uses it for good... no matter the cost. his rules are the same as ours, he just has a wild card in his hand.

Even if the cost is the existence of the human race?

Are you sure your so called morals to which you refer are worth the cost?

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[dcmarriott]

Mountain Sniper,

First of all, let’s remember that the topic of this thread is whether it was ridiculous for Lana to have stopped Clark from killing Lex. That has lead into a general discussion of Clark’s morality, and it was in that context that Clark’s battle with Zod was raised. However, this thread should not turn into a discussion of whether Clark should have killed Zod; that is another topic. The topic of this thread remains whether it was consistent with the portrayal of Clark that Smallville has given us for Clark to have wanted to kill Lex (Lex, not Zod) and for Lana to have stopped him.

That said, I think that the Vessel/Zod story arc had significant things to say about Clark’s morality. In Vessel, Clark refused to kill Lex, Zod’s vessel, because he felt that it was morally wrong to do so. He paid the price for his refusal by being sent to the Phantom Zone. Ultimately, though, he was able to return Zod to the Phantom Zone and free Lex, without killing Lex or Zod. In other words, he was able to find a solution that did not require him to compromise his principles.

The show has always found ways of bringing criminals to justice without killing them. Those villains who were human have been turned over to the police. Many meteor-powered villains have been sent to Belle Reeve, or confined in Level 33.1. In Bizzarro, the Bizzaro-Clark was taken by the Martian Manhunter to an unnamed prison; clearly he was not executed, since he returned a few episodes later. The phantoms who escaped from the Phantom Zone were returned there, including Zod and Faora.

Throughout Smallville’s seven seasons, Clark has been shown to have a consistent moral code, instilled in him by his parents. An essential part of that code is the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Although tempted on occasion, Clark has never killed anyone deliberately. He has almost always found a way to subdue his enemies without killing them. Those who have died have generally died by accident, usually precipitated by their own actions.



Do you really think some kinder and gentler Zod is just going to decide to turn himself over to human police and politely stand trial and accept the judgement of “primitive” human law etc. Then if convicted Clark will magically come up with some way to open up the phantom zone to exile Zod who of course in your scenario simply accepts his sentence from the primitive human race.


Of course not. I never suggested that. Real criminals don’t behave in that way, they have to be arrested and dragged to court in handcuffs. Why would fictional villains be any different? If any fictional villains did act like that, it would be a pretty short episode. What I am saying is that any villain, Zod included, should be brought to justice, and not simply murdered in the street. In Smallville, bringing Zod to justice meant returning him to the Phantom Zone. His sentence was one dictated by Kryptonian law. For Lex, the appropriate thing would have been to have brought him to trial for his crimes, not to kill him in his bunker.

You have repeated made the point that I sleep safely and soundly in my bed because “rough men stand ready to do violence on [my] behalf.” That is a completely irrelevant argument. Whether I sleep soundly or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the writers on Smallville have been presenting a consistent portrayal of Clark Kent. However, since you have made the argument, I will answer it. Yes, I know that I sleep soundly because others do legally-sanctioned violence on my behalf, specifically the police and the military. However, I can sleep soundly because I know that the police in my part of the world are bound by a code of conduct that limits the violence that they are allowed to do. Specifically, they cannot simply execute criminals whenever they want to, and if they do, they are brought to justice themselves. Similarly, the military that protects me is bound by a code of conduct that precludes them from massacring innocent civilians, torturing prisoners of war or committing acts of genocide in my name. I am grateful that they are bound by those codes of conduct, because I know that there are many people in this world who do NOT sleep soundly, because there are rough men standing ready to do violence to them.

Similarly, I expect that the heroes in the fiction I enjoy to abide by a code of conduct. If they do not do so, I don’t see them as heroes. In the case of Superman, there was been a consistent code of conduct that has governed his adventures for the past seventy years. That code of conduct included a prohibition against killing even the worst of his enemies. Smallville appears to have bought into the code of conduct, and consistently showed Clark acting in accordance with its dictates, up until this last episode.

The question remains, was out of character for Clark to have wanted to kill Lex? Yes. Was it ridiculous for Lana to have stopped Clark? Yes.

[MountainSniper]

Hi dcmarriott,

In Vessel, Clark refused to kill Lex, Zod’s vessel, because he felt that it was morally wrong to do so. He paid the price for his refusal by being sent to the Phantom Zone.

Clark didn’t pay the price other innocents did because due to luck, circumstance, fate etc Raya happened to be in the Phantom Zone and she knew how to exit and she had Jor-el’s crystal.

All the innocent people that died due to Clark allowing Zod and then the phantoms/criminals to escape paid the ultimate price, not Clark.

Ultimately, though, he was able to return Zod to the Phantom Zone and free Lex, without killing Lex or Zod. In other words, he was able to find a solution that did not require him to compromise his principles.

Totally wrong and here is why.

Clark’s escape from the Phantom Zone and defeat of Zod had nothing to do with his so called moral choices but instead it was those moral choices that resulted in the deaths of dozens? hundreds? thousands? of innocent people killed in the rioting of Black Thursday.

If Clark would have followed Jor-el’s plan and destroyed the Vessel all those innocent people killed on Black Thursday would still be alive.

All the innocents killed on Black Thursday vs mass murderer Lex Luthor’s life is not a smart or moral call on Clark’s part.

The show has always found ways of bringing criminals to justice without killing them.

Really? What show are you watching?

The body count on Smallville is massive. Everyone from the Luthors to Clark to Lois to Chloe to Lana has killed on Smallville.

Sometimes they get lucky and bring the meteor freak to justice without any bodies piling up but more often than not someone buys the farm.

However Zod is a special case. He is no meteor freak but a full blown mature Kryptonian man with military training. Clark wouldn’t stand a chance against him unless circumstance/luck/fate had Raya put Jor-el’s crystal into Clark’s hands. Jor-el was right.

The correct & moral action was to never allow any chance that Zod would escape and the way to do that was to destroy the Vessel Lex Luthor.

Proof that Clark couldn’t take Zod unless he got lucky and in doing so risked the existence of the human race is in a quote from Raya.

Proof Episode Zod

Raya: Zod is a soldier. He will kill you.

Those villains who were human have been turned over to the police.

Sometimes and sometimes they are killed by Chloe, Clark, Lex, Lana, Lois etc

But your point is irrelevant because Zod is not human but a full blown Kryptonian man with military training.

In Bizzarro, the Bizzaro-Clark was taken by the Martian Manhunter to an unnamed prison; clearly he was not executed, since he returned a few episodes later. The phantoms who escaped from the Phantom Zone were returned there, including Zod and Faora.

Actually the Martian Manhunter killed two Phantoms to save Clark’s life and Lana Lang killed Bizzaro to save Clark’s life.

If Clark would have destroyed the Vessel like Jor-el told him to none of the innocent people killed in the riots of Black Thursday would have died.

Also if Clark would have manned up and followed Jor-el’s plan none of the Phantoms, Alien criminals, Bizzaro etc would have escaped the Phantom zone in the first place and thus all the innocent people the Phantoms, zoner criminals killed would still be alive.

Clark Kent has the deaths of a lot of innocent people hanging over his head due to his decision not to follow Jor-el’s plan to defend earth from Zod’s plan to escape the Phantom zone.

How are you going to justify Clark’s decision that lead to the deaths of so many innocent people and potentially risked the existence of the entire human race?

Throughout Smallville’s seven seasons, Clark has been shown to have a consistent moral code, instilled in him by his parents. An essential part of that code is the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Although tempted on occasion, Clark has never killed anyone deliberately.

I like the way you used the word “deliberately” as a get out of jail free card.

The fact is Clark kills on a regular basis on Smallville and he has done so since season 1. You can try to sugar coat it with “deliberately” but do you really think Clark’s heat vision doesn’t have any effect on organic flesh?

Do you really think that Clark when he constantly using violence of action where deaths occur due to the violence gets him off the hook?

Do you really think that defense of “it wasn’t deliberate” would fly in a court of law if it ever came to that?

Examples of Clark killing:

Lois and Clark together killed (barbecued & electrocuted) Trent the kid with the metal blades for arms.

In the second episode Clark dropped a ton of metal on bug boy and later in the first season “kills?” Sean Kelvin in the episode Cool by throwing him into the lake which freezes.

Clark kills Wes in Prototype with a blast of heat vision to save Lois.

Clark kills sentient beings like Gloria in Wither when using heat vision he makes a sprinkler burst over the lights in the greenhouse and thus electrocuting Gloria and causing her to vaporize.

Then in Combat in a direct hand to hand fight Clark kills Titan. And no it is not an accident (no matter what Mommy Kent says) when Clark seeks out Titan and willingly with intent to do harm steps into a ring to fight. It is not murder but neither can it be labeled an accident.

Also the powers that be sometimes use someone else killing to save Clark as a “get out of jail free card” for Clark killing. The Martian Manhunter twice had to kill sentient beings ie Aliens/Zoners to save Clark’s life. Then Lana had to kill Bizzaro in order to save Clark.

I am sure there are other examples since the body count in Smallville is so high.

The fact is if Clark can do the above then he can follow Jor-el’s plan and destroy the vessel since this time he is not just saving his family, friends or one or two innocents but instead is protecting the existence of humanity.

He has almost always found a way to subdue his enemies without killing them. Those who have died have generally died by accident, usually precipitated by their own actions.

Double speak and spin on your part.

Clark has used violence of action and in doing so in many cases his opponents ended up dead. When you purposely seek out a fight then you have to accept responsibility for the subsequence events that are the result of your use of violence of action.

What I am saying is that any villain, Zod included, should be brought to justice, and not simply murdered in the street. In Smallville, bringing Zod to justice meant returning him to the Phantom Zone. His sentence was one dictated by Kryptonian law.

How would you do this? Zod is a mature Krytonian man and a trained soldier. The best way to keep Zod in the phantom zone is to follow Jor-el’s plan since Jor-el knows the phantom zone and Zod better than anyone and he knows making sure Zod doesn’t have a vessel to escape to in the first place is the best, safest and most sure way to protect humanity.

BTW it is Earth and there is no one there to enforce Krytonian Law so Zod is not going to be operating under the rule of Krytonian Law so your point is meaningless.

However, since you have made the argument, I will answer it. Yes, I know that I sleep soundly because others do legally-sanctioned violence on my behalf, specifically the police and the military. However, I can sleep soundly because I know that the police in my part of the world are bound by a code of conduct that limits the violence that they are allowed to do. Specifically, they cannot simply execute criminals whenever they want to, and if they do, they are brought to justice themselves. Similarly, the military that protects me is bound by a code of conduct that precludes them from massacring innocent civilians, torturing prisoners of war or committing acts of genocide in my name.

Irrelevant because Zod is a special case since he is not under the rule of human law and there is no legal body or police that are capable of putting Zod under the rule of law.

Zod is not a common criminal and what is at stake is not what is at stake when dealing with ordinary human criminals in a civil human society operating under the rule of human law.

Zod is a super powered alien being whose intentions are to destroy humanity and the rule of earth law is irrelevant so in Vessel the time has come to listen to Jor-el and to put his plan into action if you want to have the best shot at saving humanity.

Similarly, I expect that the heroes in the fiction I enjoy to abide by a code of conduct. If they do not do so, I don’t see them as heroes.

What happens if your so called “code of conduct” causes the deaths of dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? in riots, the release of super powered alien criminals and phantoms that kill even more innocents?

How many people have to be killed and what risk does humanity have to be put in dcmarriott before you realize your code of conduct is not moral but a farce?

Smallville appears to have bought into the code of conduct, and consistently showed Clark acting in accordance with its dictates, up until this last episode.

Even as Clark's heat vision is barbecuing Trent while Lois electrocutes him?

Even as a ton of metal released by Clark splats the bug boy?

Even as Wes is also done in by Clark’s heat vision?

Etc, etc, etc.

BTW don’t forget I forgive\accept\applaud Clark for all of the above because his actions even though they resulted in death were to defend innocent lives etc but I also realistic enough to see and accept them for what they are.

All the best,

Warmest Regards, Mountain Sniper

[dcmarriott]

Gee I wonder what Juvenal would have said about the watchmen if he had been living a couple hundred years later when the Visgloths sacked Rome?

Well the alternative is to get rid of the watchman but then what do you do when what the watchmen were watching against happens and next thing you know you and your family are standing at the edge of a trench dug in the black soil of Choeung Ek or you are being lead off to the Gulog etc?


You've misunderstood the quote. Juvenal wasn't saying that society doesn't need guardians. He was simply stating, in the form of a retorical question, the essential problem that all societies face, namely that when society empowers a professional group to guard its security, that group itself may end up abusing its power and become a threat to the citizens that they are sworn to protect.

To use your own examples, the 'watchmen' in Cambodia and Russia respectively were the Khmer Rouge and the KGB. Do you think the people of Cambodia and Russia slept soundly, knowing that they had such "rough men standign ready to do violence on their behalf"?

Superhero fiction has always had a unique ability to explore this question of the responsible uses of power. Christopher Nolan's Batman films have addressed the question in interesting and thoughtful ways. Smallville has not done as good a job.

----- Added 27 Minutes later -----

Mountain Sniper,

So are you saying that Clark should have killed Lex in Requiem? And that Lana should not have stopped him?

Should he also have killed Chloe in Legion, since Brainiac had possessed her? And Lois in Bloodline, since Faora had possessed her? Both are, like Zod, superpowered beings intent on destroying humanity.

Should he have killed Lana in Wrath when she became a super-powered being?

[MountainSniper]

Hi dcmarriott,

You've misunderstood the quote. Juvenal wasn't saying that society doesn't need guardians. He was simply stating, in the form of a retorical question, the essential problem that all societies face, namely that when society empowers a professional group to guard its security, that group itself may end up abusing its power and become a threat to the citizens that they are sworn to protect.

I didn’t misunderstand it at all because it is all so predictable.

The politically correct ivory tower academics always resent/hate/despise the watchman because as long as peace holds the academics live in an artificial world where watchmen are not required but instead society gives their respect, attention and admiration to the politically correct academics as they make their theoretical pronouncements of truth from their ivory towers.

It is never until the Visigoths, Khmer Rouge, Army of God, Al Quaida, etc appear at the gates of the ivory tower that the politically correct academics come running to beg those watchmen they previously despised to save their safe comfortable and always hypocritical lives.

Far more civilizations and cultures have been brought about their own destruction by banishing their watchmen than have been taken down by their watchmen and Rome is a good example.


To use your own examples, the 'watchmen' in Cambodia and Russia respectively were the Khmer Rouge and the KGB. Do you think the people of Cambodia and Russia slept soundly, knowing that they had such "rough men standign ready to do violence on their behalf"?

Wrong,

It was the Khmer Republic that dismissed it’s watchmen due to internal fighting with King Sihamouk that allowed the Khmur Rouge (standing in as the Visigoths) to take Phnom Penh April 17th 1975. It was the Khmer Rouge in their subsequent brutal restructuring of Cambodian society known as Year Zero where money, class and education were outlawed and the entire country was turned into a Maoist agrarian cooperative. In the end hundreds of thousands ended up in the black soil of the killing fields of Choeung Ek due to no watchmen on duty when the Khmer Rouge came calling on the Khmer Republic.

Don’t try to lecture me on Cambodia. I have spent a lot of time in Cambodia and in fact was in Phnom Penh standing on Pochentong Boulevard during the July 1997 coup.

The story is similar with the fall of the Czarist Autocracy in Russia to the Bolsheviks. If the Czar would have been on the ball his watchmen would have been in place and they would have stopped the Bolsheviks. Instead the infighting in the Czar’s court etc froze their response and next thing you know everyone is dead and the Bolsheviks are filling up the Siberian Gulags.

Your examples are examples of what happens to societies that lose sight of the world as it is and get rid of those expensive pesky watchman and then inevitably like Rome fall to the modern equivalents of Visigoths.


Superhero fiction has always had a unique ability to explore this question of the responsible uses of power. Christopher Nolan's Batman films have addressed the question in interesting and thoughtful ways. Smallville has not done as good a job.

Of course Smallville hasn’t done a good job because they have a apathetic Clark Kent unable to pull himself together enough to deal with a world wide crisis by following his super intelligent Kryptonian Daddy’s explicit instructions on how to save the human race from Super Powered Kryptonian General Zod.


So are you saying that Clark should have killed Lex in Requiem? And that Lana should not have stopped him?

Actually I am saying if Clark would have followed his super intelligent Kryptonian Daddy’s instructions two seasons earlier and stopped Zod from escaping the phantom zone along with saving everyone killed in the riots and murdered by escaped phantoms etc then the issue would have been resolved long before Requiem.


Should he also have killed Chloe in Legion, since Brainiac had possessed her? And Lois in Bloodline, since Faora had possessed her? Both are, like Zod, superpowered beings intent on destroying humanity.

I am in the Middle East and don’t have Smallville on TV out here but usually watch the DVDs as they come available and occasionally see an episode early on the internet. I read some recaps etc so have a fair idea of what is going on regarding the show over the return of Lana arch.

However I didn’t specifically see those episodes to which you refer but will state that if Clark is facing the same issue of a Vessel that he faced in Vessel with Zod then of course the existence of the human race is more important than temporarily saving one human life.

The huge difference is in Clark’s shoes I would not be feeling guilty over trading Lex Luthor’s (a mass murdering psycho) life to save humanity but of course would feel terrible about have to do the same to two babes/sweeties/heroes in their own right like Chloe and Lois.

But of course I believe that both Chloe and Lois would in a heartbeat sacrifice themselves if it meant ensuring the safety of mankind but even so it would be a heartbreaker but a necessary heartbreaker.

Should he have killed Lana in Wrath when she became a super-powered being?

Only if she was going to kill innocents or the fate of the world was on the line but as long as she was only going after mass murdering psycho Lex Luthor I personally would have been willing to act has her spotter while she puts the crosshairs on his skull.

But that is just how I feel about mass murdering psychos that are living above the rule of law.

I will never understand why Clark, Chloe and Lois lost interest in going after Lex Luthor in season seven. I would have thought after everything Lex did to Chloe’s mother etc they would have all teamed up with Lana Lang and the Isis foundation to take Lex down as one big happy gang.

All the best,

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[dcmarriott]

Then you haven't even seen Requiem?

Why are you posting on this thread, if you haven't even watched the episode that we are talking about?

[Cogito17]

I don't see why Lana showing up precludes Clark from coming to his senses on his own.

In "Vengeance", he nearly killed the thug who stole his father's watch, but came to his senses on his own. In "Pariah", he could have killed the guy who killed Alicia, but came to his senses (Lois was there, but she couldn't have stopped him if he really wanted to go through with it). Also, in "Bizarro" he talks about how he intended to kill Lex when he went into the damn, but, once again, never did so.

I guess I don't understand the assumption that Clark would in fact have killed if left alone, when all prior evidence points to the contrary. Yes, Lana showed up to help bring him to his senses when he was considering killing, but that does not necessarily mean he wouldn't have stopped himself on his own.

The question to ask is: What would Clark have done if Lana hadn't arrived?

The only answers are conjecture, we will never know for a certainty. But I have seen past history which indicates he wouldn't have actually gone through with it. If anyone has evidence to the contrary (Clark killing someone intentionally on Smallville), feel free to refresh my memory. Otherwise, I think people are unfairly assuming the worst about Clark despite prior evidence that he would make the right decision even if Lana hadn't arrived.

[MountainSniper]

I don't see why Lana showing up precludes Clark from coming to his senses on his own.

In "Vengeance", he nearly killed the thug who stole his father's watch, but came to his senses on his own. In "Pariah", he could have killed the guy who killed Alicia, but came to his senses (Lois was there, but she couldn't have stopped him if he really wanted to go through with it). Also, in "Bizarro" he talks about how he intended to kill Lex when he went into the damn, but, once again, never did so.

I guess I don't understand the assumption that Clark would in fact have killed if left alone, when all prior evidence points to the contrary. Yes, Lana showed up to help bring him to his senses when he was considering killing, but that does not necessarily mean he wouldn't have stopped himself on his own.

The question to ask is: What would Clark have done if Lana hadn't arrived?

The only answers are conjecture, we will never know for a certainty. But I have seen past history which indicates he wouldn't have actually gone through with it. If anyone has evidence to the contrary (Clark killing someone intentionally on Smallville), feel free to refresh my memory. Otherwise, I think people are unfairly assuming the worst about Clark despite prior evidence that he would make the right decision even if Lana hadn't arrived.


Actually you have a very good point; It is never clear that Clark is actually going to kill Lex due to losing Lana but according to prior behavior (which you outlined) I also would agree with you and expect that he would back off and put the breaks on before he did the happy deed.

Lana was just an early brake on the emotional Clark but most likely unless Lex appeared in front of him within a few minutes of Clark losing Lana he would settle down and refert to his usual (apathetic) character.

I mean if he wouldn't kill Lex to ensure the survival of the human race against Zod's release even with extentive warnings from Jor-el, Chloe, Lionel etc I doubt if he would do the same over losing Lana in Requiem.

Any chance of Clark killing Lex in Requiem would be when he is in maximum emotional angish before the logic of acceptance etc kick in and since Lex wasn't at the scene to take the immediate heat I expect Clark would have backed off on revenge on his own.

That said as is obvious from my above posts I am nothing like Smallville's Clark and would have happily dug Lex's heart out with a rusty spoon two seasons earlier with the green light from Jor-el in Vessel.

All the best,

Cheers Mountain Sniper

[MountainSniper]

Hi dcmarriott,

Then you haven't even seen Requiem?

I have seen Requiem and what I actually said in the above post was I haven’t seen those episodes that you specifically refer to i.e. Bloodline & Legion where Chloe and Lois are possessed by alien beings.

I have read recaps and transcripts for most of season eights episodes but not all of them.

However, last night another poster (tks IIK6165) who was so kind to message me with a link where I can watch all the Smallville episodes so in between the usual sandbox activities now I will be able to catch up on all of season eight.

I will say I still enjoy the DVD versions since you get the commentary from the directors, actors, writers and the cut scenes which usually convey a lot of the information that happens in offscreenville.


Why are you posting on this thread, if you haven't even watched the episode that we are talking about?

Well check this out boys n girls!

So is it because you can’t come up with a counter argument you are instead going to try this old defection tactic from debate 101?

BTW if you thought I hadn’t even seen Requiem why didn’t you just post counter points to my above post since you would be at a huge advantage of access to superior intelligence (meaning access to current information from Requiem not IQ) from having seen the episode?

Anyway I am out here in the sandbox enjoying the 500 day of sunshine in a row just shivering in anticipation of getting slapped around by your brilliant counter points to my above post.

All the best and warmest regards, Mountain Sniper

[InAFlash]

Mountainsniper,

I always appreciate your posts. I don't always agree with you, but I enjoy reading your posts because your perspective on things is so much different than mine. You bring up points that I had not even considered probably because my life situation is so different than yours.

As far as the Lex/Zod situation in "Vessel", I have to agree with you. Clark was given instructions by Jor-El to kill the vessel(Lex) and did not listen. As you pointed out, had he done this it would have saved lives. Fortunately for him he was able to find another way to stop Zod and spare the lives of more innocent people. But as you mentioned he needed Raya's help and the crystal to do this and his escape from the Phantom Zone led to more innocent people dying.

The situation in "Legion" with Chloe/Brainiac was similar to the one in "Vessel". From your post you said you had not seen "Legion" so I'll describe what happened. Here Clark is told by the Legionnaires to kill Brainiac's host in order to stop him. He refuses to do this telling them to never take a life and that there is always another way. Clark's plan succeeded after the Legion members were able to perform an exorcism to remove Brainiac from Chloe's body. So once again Clark was able to find a way to stop an evil force without taking a life. He gives the Legionnaires a speech about how important it is to always try and find a way to preserve life. But I wonder what would have happened had the tables been turned. What if Brainiac's host had not been a friend of Clark's but instead been someone the Legion member's were close with? Would Clark have reacted the same way? I think an important thing to consider is that Clark did not just save A LIFE, he saved CHLOE'S LIFE. He clearly has an emotional attachment to Chloe and I believe this is why he was so motivated to save her. He can lecture the Legionairres all he wants but what if they had not been able to perform this exorcism? Would Clark have been willing to sacrifice Chloe, someone he loves dearly to save innocent lives and possibly prevent the destruction of the planet? Jor-El tried to teach Clark this lesson in "Arrival": "Each time you let emotions guide you, the fate of the entire planet is at risk. That is your weakness, Kal-El!"

Smallville has posed this question in "Vessel" and "Legion": Would Clark take one life to save many other lives? In both of these situations Clark found another way. I would love to see the writers create a scenerio where the ONLY option is for Clark to take one life to save many lives. I wonder what he would do especially if that person is someone he cares for.

As for Clark's actions in "Requiem", he did nearly the same thing at the end of S6 in "Phantom" for the same reason. After learning that Lionel had forced Lana to marry Lex by threatening Clark's life, we see a look of rage come across Clark's face in the scene where he is hugging Lana. He then goes to Luthorcorp and confronts Lionel. In this scene he has his left hand around Lionel's throat and has him pinned to the wall. He then starts to swing his right fist presumably with the intention of putting it through Lionel's skull when the Martian Manhunter shows up and stops him. In "Requiem" he goes after Lex for the same reason, because Lex is trying to keep him and Lana apart. In both of these situations his reaction is an emotional one. He lets his emotional attachment to Lana and the anger he feels in the moment dictate his actions. This is something you actually pointed out to me in another thread. Also, I tend to agree with you when you say that he probably would have eventually calmed down and not gone through with it. I do however feel it's ridiculous that Lana appears to be more mature than Clark and does not let her emotions guide her in this situation. After all at this point she's lost just as much as Clark has.

I think Clark's biggest problem at this point is what Jor-El mentioned in "Arrival", that he is ruled by his emotions. In "Phantom" and "Requiem" he let his emotional attachment to Lana get the better of him and went after the Luthors. In "Legion" he let his emotional attachment to Chloe cloud his judgement as to what the proper course of action should be. Now I'm not necessarily saying he should have killed Chloe but I'm simply pointing out that there will not always be an easy way out for him. Something you also pointed out in your "Vessel" example. In order for him to become the hero we all know he will become he's going to have to at times make difficult decisions and not let his emotions get in the way of these decisions. IMO this is a lesson he has not learned yet and so I believe his actions in "Requiem" are consistent with his actions in previous episodes. He needs to seriously consider what Jor-el told him in "Hidden": "The lessons that we learn from pain are the ones that make us the strongest."

As for whether or not Clark should have killed Lex for the same reason Oliver killed him -- because he's evil and it will save lives -- I'm still on the fence on this one. Killing the hosts' of both Zod and Brainiac is one thing because of the level of destruction they could have caused. I can also understand killing Titan and Gloria given the threat they posed. However, Lex is an entirely different case. I know he's dangerous but he's still only human. IMO there are other options, but you do make some good points about Lex being above the law.

All the best to you Mountainsniper. I look forward to reading more of your posts.