Clark pauses(MERGED)

[superhippie2000]

lol he paused and thought about helping lex lol

[Luthor5339]

Yeah, I know. That was great- that's how you show him as superman and man.

[jimmyolsenblues]

last second, it was great.
he really did not want to save him.

[Kid Collins]

Originally posted by superhippie2000
lol he paused and thought about helping lex lol

And he pushed him instead of deflecting the bullet. :D

[SmallvilleMan]

"Hmmmm, Should I help this piece of crap who I know made the girl I love marry him or save him again..."

[Runestone]

IMO he only saved Lex so Chloe wouldn't have a murder on her hands.

[clois_lover10]

I love how Clark shoved Lex into the wall as hard as he could without permanently hurting him. :p

[superhippie2000]

he waited till it was at his nose im like huh wow clark might let lex die lol

[Hibiscus]

I honestly think he would have let Lex die, but he didn't want it to be at Chloe's hands.

[Spiderman39]

Yeah, should moved the bullet and let it hit his arm or something.

[Thesis]

that was a long ass pause Clark. lol

[Ginx]

Originally posted by superhippie2000
lol he paused and thought about helping lex lol

That was just awesome. And I entirely agree - it did show the difference between Superman and just a man.

[nightshadz]

That push should have killed Lex. A bullet a foot way from his face would have required Clark to shove him faster than the bullet was traveling. :lol:

[Luthor5339]

Yeah! Lol. "You took my girl, you ruined her life and are ruining mine- you die now... on second thought, nah."

[Mog-el]

lol clark contemplating on whatever to save lex ass or not, but did the right thing at the end.

[Deadeye]

He took some thought to do that. Shows that he must help others, even if that person happens to be the man that took your girl, impregnates her, marries her, and will turn out to become your arch nemesis of the future.

Oh how I wished he would've let the bullet pass :P

And did anyone notice Chloe's accuracy? That was a full on head shot.

[biggkoz]

I liked how they had some thought about waiting to save lex and then the ok fine I have to save this idiot.

[Cool_Breeze]

ya that part was pretty awesome. How many times has he saved lex now?

[angeloo]

like 15 plus times lol

[MidgardDragon]

I was wondering if Clark was just toying with Lex (even though Lex didn't know he was going to be saved) by letting the thing get as close as possible before saving him. It may be that he really had to stop and decide wether or not he was really going to save him, but I think it might be a bit of both.

[regex_1]

I was thinking that maybe he was just deciding the best plan of action. Doubt it, but I like to think positive.

Though this show is suppose to Clark developing into the man we know and it shows that he will do the right thing no matter what.

[redraven]

I think Clark hesitating to push Lex out of the bullet's way was the best part of the episode. :D

(That and Lana finding out the truth of her pregnancy.)

[DaveyDave]

I thought he was trying the figure out the best way to keep his secret from Lex and then thinking about is it really worth the effort since it's Lex. Great scene.

[bibi_sv___clana4ever]

Originally posted by redraven
I think Clark hesitating to push Lex out of the bullet's way was the best part of the episode. :D

(That and Lana finding out the truth of her pregnancy.)

I second that!!!

[ChloeMars]

I'm pretty sure Clark wouldn't have bothered if it wasn't for Chloe. He wouldn't let Chloe kill anyone, no matter who it was... otherwise he would have let the sucker die.

[D.M.A.]

Originally posted by Hibiscus
I honestly think he would have let Lex die, but he didn't want it to be at Chloe's hands.
I agree,he didn't want chloe to have that on her conscious but it wouldn't have killed lex anyways.It wasn't a bullet shot,but I do think clark was very concern wit chloe tonight.

[Mr.]

yah that was nice and sweet the chloe/clark thing it was like a true friendship :D but i didn't like the end
the when chloe said "think about lana"
come on...

and yeah he pushed lex hard!!! YEAh!!! woohhoo!!

[arob21]

So no one notice that Clark smiled right before he pushed him.

[silentCivilian]

Originally posted by arob21
So no one notice that Clark smiled right before he pushed him.

He did? I have to check that out in detail.

[sin]

that was one LARGE bullet

[j_sundude]

I thought it was pretty cool how instead of just lightly moving Lex out of the way, Clark shoved him into the wall with force.

[Chlarkerlover]

It wasn't a bullet, it was a tear gass(or whatever, might not have been) bomb thingy.

I think Clark was thinking something like this "ohcomeonthissucckawasgoingtohurtchloenowIhavetosav ehisbuttwhattheheckohwellcan'tletherkillnoonebutI' llmakehimwaithahahere"

translation: "oh come on this succka was going to hurt chloe now I have to save his butt what the heck oh well can't let her kill no one but I'll make him wait haha here"

[AndiGirl]

I really don't think Clark wanted to save him...plain and simple. After everything Lex has put them through....everyone would be better off. But Clark is the superman we all know and love, and he knows that's not the way to go about it. Plus, Chloe would have to live with killing Lex, and he couldn't do that to her. I loved that scene to. He's just watching it get closer to his face...haha.

[bibi_sv___clana4ever]

Originally posted by arob21
So no one notice that Clark smiled right before he pushed him.

I don't think that was a smile. I think he was annoyed.

[dimeo782002]

lol yeah that was funny

[Dark Knight23]

I thought that part was awesome. And when Clark decided to save Lex he had a lil frown on his face. I thought that was great.

[smallvilleusedtobegood]

In the "Director's Cut" on the Video section of the CW website, Clark waited a heck of a lot longer.

Also, in the Director's Cut, Chloe was slower to fire at Lex.

[BadToad]

After the bashing Clark took on the DC, I had to laugh when the final product made it an almost none issue. You could even say he hesitated for the right moment, not because he didn't want to save Lex. I don't see any problem with it all.

[msleggie]

That was so great! I loved how it looked like Clark was seriously thinking about not saving Lex.

[Lex is a god]

I thought it was a good scene because if Lex died he could have Lana. Why both Lex and clark want Lana is beyond me. I always thought Chloe was the better choice. Of course I am glad Clark saved Lex because no matter how evil he is I still love him!

[JWangSDC]

Uhm, I thought clarkwas waiting for hte bullet to get close neough so it could be like hte bullet was the one that pushed lex.....

[elway]

I thought it was great how they did that. It showed CK's human emotions all the pent up anger towards Lex, but then remembers whats right and dose the right thing as always.

[shlyish]

When I saw Clark hessitate(sorry for spelling), I LOVED IT!!! and then he pushed him into the wall, LOVED THAT TO, all though I think he should have pushed him harder.

[maryjanewatson]

i love how clark hesitated, and how instead if just making it seem like chloe didn't aim well, he just shoved him really hard! BWAHAHAHA! omigosh, how i laughed. I love clark so much!!

[Quinton_Cumbers]

I think the hesitation was great. There are 2 reasons why he actually saved Lex.
1.) To save Chloe
2.) He's closer to becoming Superman, and just doesn't have it in him to let someone die. If he is able to save them, he WILL, no matter who it is!

[wearetheborg]

[i]
2.) He's closer to becoming Superman, and just doesn't have it in him to let someone die. If he is able to save them, he WILL, no matter who it is! [/B]

Actually he does. By saving lex, he has lets many people die (via lex).

[SV'S_immortal_hero]

wen i saw this scene i instantly thought about CRIMSON were clark said sumit along the lines of "if i hadnt saved you that day on the bridge every1's lives would be so much better" but in crimson he was influenced by red-k so he said that since he didnt care, normal clark wouldnt let any1 die

but you could really see it in his face wen the bullet got close to lex's face that he thought "should i let you die every1's lives would be so much better" but wen he made the angry decision to save him you could tell he was thinking "theres better ways to deal with you rather than killing you"

[Fillesmall]

yeah, great episode.

[Dor el]

Clark hesitated for what? A millisecond? I think he never even considered letting Lex die. ( I probably would have thought. Such a convenient solution to his Lex problems.) He had to keep Lex from finding out about him, but more importantly, he had to save Chloe as well as Lex. I think he just thought about his course of action. If you think about it, he went through the decision tree pretty fast. I think Clark was very supermanly in this epeisode.

[krpto]

I think clark didn't want to save lex but knew that chloe would be destroyed if she killed anyone so he saved lex while scaring the crap out of him.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH_L0Y4be_c


The look is priceless

[superpal1]

I loved the hesitation and then the realization that he can't just let Lex die. His ability to put others before him is what makes Superman, Superman. Clark is starting to see this and realize that it is not always going to be a black and white decision. I like that after he realized that he had to save Lex, he also realized that he did not have to be gentle about it and through him into the wall.

[sithius]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
Actually he does. By saving lex, he has lets many people die (via lex).

Yeah, tell me about it. I saw this psycho walking down the street other day. I should have stabbed him in the neck to prevent any murders he might do in the future. :rolleyes: Get a grip mate.

I think the scene was so-so. I mean, he hesitates long and has a super brain, so my first reaction was 'Why is he taking so long to decide the obvious, which is that he won't let Chloe be a murderer or let Lex, a human, die'? Then I realized he hesitated only for a couple of seconds in super speed, so his thinking rate was probably equal to ours then.

To the person who said 'he would have let him die if it wasn't for chloe' is seriously deluded and knows nothing about Clark Kent/Superman.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Originally posted by superpal1
I loved the hesitation and then the realization that he can't just let Lex die. His ability to put others before him is what makes Superman, Superman. Clark is starting to see this and realize that it is not always going to be a black and white decision. I like that after he realized that he had to save Lex, he also realized that he did not have to be gentle about it and through him into the wall.

Superman is not about black and white, he is about right and wrong.
The world is shades of gray, but right and wrong are a constant for someone like Superman.

Allowing someone to die when he can prevent it is wrong, if there is one character in all comic book land that does NOT follow the crap of "the ends justifies the means", that is Superman.

[Mrs.Bizzaro]

You know when I saw that part I was like..."hmm, that took him a while." I almost didn't realize the hesitation ...I didn't even take it that way at all that he hesitated but that would be funny if it were true.

But I don't think he hesitated to save lex. I think it was just dragged out for dramatic effect.

[mcgairman]

Originally posted by sin
that was one LARGE bullet

It was a gas capsule used to quel riots, like those used by police. Chloe should not have fired it straight at Lex. That shows she was being "used" by Moira.
:)

[Mrs.Bizzaro]

Well what Moira was telling Chloe to do is to get out and not let anyone stop her. She was trying to save her daughter...she had good intentions. Besides, how would she have known Chloe would run into lex and launch that thing at him?

Chloe was just following orders...not letting ANYTHING stop her which includes lex and if she had to go through him...literally...then so be it in her mind.

[margroks]

I'm not sure if it was as much hesitation as it was not quite coordination with the special effects. Becasue Clark is supposed to have learned the lesson that you have to save first and ask questions later. Not sure on that one.

[wearetheborg]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
Superman is not about black and white, he is about right and wrong.
The world is shades of gray, but right and wrong are a constant for someone like Superman.

Allowing someone to die when he can prevent it is wrong, if there is one character in all comic book land that does NOT follow the crap of "the ends justifies the means", that is Superman.

Thats why superman is a retard :D

Bruce Wayne would have handle it so much better :D

[boywithbluehanger]

That scene was probably the best in the episode. It was creepy watching Clark stand there hesitant about saving Lex. Because that means he is finally at the point where he questions and contemplates if someone as harmful as Lex deserves to live.

Very daunting look from Clark in that scene.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
Thats why superman is a retard :D

Bruce Wayne would have handle it so much better :D

Cooler, maybe, better? No.
Even Batman doesn't kill, or allow to be killed by lack of action if he can do something about it.

[wearetheborg]

[i]
Even Batman doesn't kill, or allow to be killed by lack of action if he can do something about it. [/B]

"I wont kill you. But I also dont have to save you"
--Batman Begins.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
"I wont kill you. But I also dont have to save you"
--Batman Begins.

out of character for Batman, but a movie always takes "artistic liberties".

Plus deep down he knew that Ra's had a way out....it was in the script ;)

[2shae]

Can you imaging how bloody it would have been if he didn't stop that "bullet" :P

[Mischael12]

Not really people seem to forget that superman is also determined by the writers as well, not just for the show but comic book interpretations.

They won't change who he is in morals, but they will show the struggle.

Which is good, a lot of the reasons people don't like superman is the belief that he is just to good/ points like this show that he struggles with it like everyone else he was made perfect.

As well superman has had cases like this, think about his fights with Darkseid.

[svsabbiesv]

ok this is what i thought.
clark sees it moving towards Lex face,
"hmmm do i save him, do i let him die, hmm life would
be so much better without this guy, but at the same time
i can't let chloe kill him, i wouldn't live with myself if
i let lex die and hurt lana one more time, and darn it
if im gonna save him im gonna make him hurt just a lil bit"
as he throws lex to the wall!
I laughed with my mom, bc i thought it was just me, but we laughed bc we were like wow he waited a long time for that..

[smallvillefreak24]

I loved that part! I almost wanted him to let him die cuz he was being so evil in this episode, but superman saves the day no matter who it is..

[Heilige]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
Superman is not about black and white, he is about right and wrong.
The world is shades of gray, but right and wrong are a constant for someone like Superman.

Allowing someone to die when he can prevent it is wrong, if there is one character in all comic book land that does NOT follow the crap of "the ends justifies the means", that is Superman.


Allowing someone to die that is evil wrong? So you are saying it is wrong to allow Hitler to die? Stalin? Hussein? Superman would save their lives?

Also, if you believe that is wrong, does that mean you are against all wars. Sometimes there is no reasoning with people. Liek all those people above that I mentioned.

[sithius]

You can't compare Lex to Stalin at this point.

Anyway, Superman thinks it is wrong to kill. If he has to do it, it'll be the very last option. (Ie with Doomsday)

Clark is what, 20 now? Really... he should have not hesitated.

[Fillesmall]

Originally posted by Heilige
Allowing someone to die that is evil wrong? So you are saying it is wrong to allow Hitler to die? Stalin? Hussein? Superman would save their lives?

Also, if you believe that is wrong, does that mean you are against all wars. Sometimes there is no reasoning with people. Liek all those people above that I mentioned.

Well in that case he could have prevent Lex from getting a bullet in his head, not that I think he really hesitated, I just wanna get to my point.
Letting someone die when you can save them is IMO nearly always wrong, give them the punishment they deserv instead, not let them slip away that easy.

[Heilige]

Originally posted by sithius
You can't compare Lex to Stalin at this point.

Anyway, Superman thinks it is wrong to kill. If he has to do it, it'll be the very last option. (Ie with Doomsday)

Clark is what, 20 now? Really... he should have not hesitated.

And when you can? Superman never tries to finish him off. Why not? If the US went to war with a rogue nation and we had to stop whoever we were at war with would Superman try to get in the way of what the US is doing? If so, I believe that would be wrong period. Trying to prevent the army in doing what they need to do. Letting evil dictators and brutal people live. That would be just as wrong.

Seriously, if Superman was around during Hitler's time, what would he do? Not try to stop him? Let Hitler consume the whole world? Evil dictators couldn't be stopped any other way.

[wearetheborg]

But I have to admit, at this point in smallville, Lex hasnt done anything to deserve the death penalty.

Has he killed/maimed anyone in a pawn sort of way ?

[Mischael12]

Yes; just all under the cover of darkness.

I don't really think Superman thinks its wrong to kill under certain circumstances.

What I do think though is that he is slightly afraid of what he is capable of.

Remember one of Clarks major fears was that he was supposed to conquer the world.

Such a fear will cramp a being up; in that they will one day lose control and nothing will be able to stop them.

And in truth nothing really can stop superman except for kryptonite.

in case of doomsday, it was inevitable Doomsday matched superman blow for blow--and then some.

Other villains can't do that.

[Mr. Clark Kent27]

I liked the Director's Cut much better, and also the look on Clark's face, so shocked that Chole would do such a thing but then maybe they should have edited that because Clark already knew that Chole was being controlled by her Mom. But it would have looked better if it were longer, Clark deciding weather he should let Lex live or die. It would have been cooler. I liked Chole saying, not in your life and then shoot him but she already interupted Lex and then shoot him in the real version. Oh well.

[Quinton_Cumbers]

Originally posted by wearetheborg
Actually he does. By saving lex, he has lets many people die (via lex).

Yeah, but all those people don't die as a direct effect of Clark saving Lex. They happen way after the fact!! It's not like Clark new at that exact moment, that if he saves Lex, others will die because of it!!!

[MidgardDragon]

Ugh, I knew this would turn into a "shouldn't have hesitated" debate. He saved the guy's life, a little bit of hesitation on his part was warranted, but he still did. He lived up to his own morals but it's only natural for ANYONE be they Superman or just Man to question their own morals once in a while.

Allowing someone to die that is evil wrong?

If you have the power to save them, that decision would be yours, and the consequences of *not* saving them would be yours just as much as the consequences of saving them. Kill Hitler before he starts the concentration camps and you may have inadvertently caused the deaths of many more lives than you saved. Would you rather bet on life or death?

[Pete Tha Bo$$ Ross]

think about what's happening next episode Clark is gonna work with Lex to get out of their situation. from the looks of the preview Clark catches Lex when he falls when he easily could have let him die. even after Lex left him to die. i think that shows that he didn't just save Lex in progeny to protect Chloe.

[Fillesmall]

Originally posted by Pete Tha Bo$$ Ross
think about what's happening next episode Clark is gonna work with Lex to get out of their situation. from the looks of the preview Clark catches Lex when he falls when he easily could have let him die. even after Lex left him to die. i think that shows that he didn't just save Lex in progeny to protect Chloe.

It's Superman, he never let someone die.

[Kid Collins]

I didn't have any problem with Clark hesitating to save Lex. He saved his sorry a$$ and that's what counts.

If Clark always did the right thing and never questioned his actions, then this show would be very predictable and he would be Superman from the start.

[freefall]

It's good to know that my worries over the DC are all for nothing :D Clark wasn't hesitating IMO, it's like he's thinking during that split nanosecond "I'd better not deflect it with my body, Lana might find the bullet again like in Trespass."

The shot of that bullet right in Lex's face is awesome.

[Martin le Magicien]

Originally posted by Heilige
And when you can? Superman never tries to finish him off. Why not? If the US went to war with a rogue nation and we had to stop whoever we were at war with would Superman try to get in the way of what the US is doing? If so, I believe that would be wrong period. Trying to prevent the army in doing what they need to do. Letting evil dictators and brutal people live. That would be just as wrong.

Seriously, if Superman was around during Hitler's time, what would he do? Not try to stop him? Let Hitler consume the whole world? Evil dictators couldn't be stopped any other way.

I believe Superman wouldn't help the USA in killing enemy soldiers that are just doing their jobs, but he wouldn't stop his country either. He'd probably just do speeches around the world about the importance of peace.

He would not kill Hitler too because he doesn't believe in murder. It doesn't mean he wouldn't stop Hitler though, and he would probably just go and free the people trapped in concentration camps.

But if we had to kill every morons that are using brutal force as a mean to achieve their ends, we would have to kill a lot of people and one powerful leader of North America first, who funnily enough, killed people of my country even though they are allies. But what good would that do ? Another moron would take his place right away. I believe that you need to change people on the inside, rather than ending their life in a way that will just lead to more violence ("violence only brings more violence"). As the peope change, they will chose leaders that represents their new values of peace and compassion. I believe that giving a positive example to everyone around by being kind and compassionnate is the best way to instigate change into people.

Like and old karate master said, violence should be the last solution to any problem. Superman could just sit on Hitler until the German nation could really express their opnions on the current war without being scare to be shot at sight. No need to kill Hitler. You just need to strip him from his power.

[freefall]

Originally posted by Martin le Magicien
I believe Superman wouldn't help the USA in killing enemy soldiers that are just doing their jobs, but he wouldn't stop his country either. He'd probably just do speeches around the world about the importance of peace.

He would not kill Hitler too because he doesn't believe in murder. It doesn't mean he wouldn't stop Hitler though, and he would probably just go and free the people trapped in concentration camps.

But if we had to kill every moron that are using brutal force as a mean to achieve their ends, we would have to kill a lot of people and one powerful leader of North America first, who funnily enough, killed people of my country even though they are allies. But what good would that do ? Another moron would take his place right away. I believe that you need to change people from the inside, instead of just ending their life in a way that doesn't lead to a positive change (if you kill people, they tend to want to kill you too, and "violence only brings more violence"). As the peope change, they will chose leaders that represents their new values of peace and compassion.

Like and old karate master said, violence should be the last solution to any problem. Superman could just sit on Hitler until the German nation could really express their opnions on the current war without being scare to be shot at sight. No need to kill Hitler. You just need to strip him from his power.

Very much agreed with.

I don't know if this is a popular saying or not, but they have The Flash on JLU (which is ironically voiced by MR) remarking that an eye for an eye makes everyone goes blind. Violence is definitely not the solution.

[Heilige]

Originally posted by seacrystal
Very much agreed with.

I don't know if this is a popular saying or not, but they have The Flash on JLU (which is ironically voiced by MR) remarking that an eye for an eye makes everyone goes blind. Violence is definitely not the solution.


It ended Nazism, Communism and Slavery and other evils in the world. Some people can't just be reasoned with.

And for whoever said would I kill Hitler before he started the concentration camps, are you saying you would let Hitler continue his destruction? You would sit and do nothing. Appeasement does not work with him. Ask Chamberlain. We do not have the luxury to just sit and do nothing. Do not act like talking to evil people like them is going to work. You are just falling into their plans.

Originally posted by MidgardDragon
Ugh, I knew this would turn into a "shouldn't have hesitated" debate. He saved the guy's life, a little bit of hesitation on his part was warranted, but he still did. He lived up to his own morals but it's only natural for ANYONE be they Superman or just Man to question their own morals once in a while.



If you have the power to save them, that decision would be yours, and the consequences of *not* saving them would be yours just as much as the consequences of saving them. Kill Hitler before he starts the concentration camps and you may have inadvertently caused the deaths of many more lives than you saved. Would you rather bet on life or death?


I am trying to understand your view. Are you a pacifist? Dealing with Hitler in 1938 instead of appeasing him like Chamberlain would have been the better option. Appeasement does not work bro. If we use your viewpoint we might as well do nothing then. Let all the evil dictators out there do what they want. The President of Iran wants to blow up Israel. You think talking to him is goign to solve anything. You were against WWII? You didn't want to stop communism? I am just confused. You wouln't want to confrot evils out there if there was no other way?

Originally posted by Martin le Magicien
I believe Superman wouldn't help the USA in killing enemy soldiers that are just doing their jobs, but he wouldn't stop his country either. He'd probably just do speeches around the world about the importance of peace.

He would not kill Hitler too because he doesn't believe in murder. It doesn't mean he wouldn't stop Hitler though, and he would probably just go and free the people trapped in concentration camps.

But if we had to kill every morons that are using brutal force as a mean to achieve their ends, we would have to kill a lot of people and one powerful leader of North America first, who funnily enough, killed people of my country even though they are allies. But what good would that do ? Another moron would take his place right away. I believe that you need to change people on the inside, rather than ending their life in a way that will just lead to more violence ("violence only brings more violence"). As the peope change, they will chose leaders that represents their new values of peace and compassion. I believe that giving a positive example to everyone around by being kind and compassionnate is the best way to instigate change into people.

Like and old karate master said, violence should be the last solution to any problem. Superman could just sit on Hitler until the German nation could really express their opnions on the current war without being scare to be shot at sight. No need to kill Hitler. You just need to strip him from his power.

One powerful leader of North America? Are you taling about Bush? I am not even going to get in it if you are, because I believe you are wrong if you were about to say something deragotory about him.

Some people can't be reasoned with. They only understand force. It is very sad. Do nothing and Hitler would have ruled the world. Stalin, Pol pot, Mao, Hussein and it goes on and on. Those people can't be reasoned with.

And those enemy soldiers are a danger to America and our way of life. We don't have a Superman in real life so we can't just sit on Hitler like you suggest.

[Martin le Magicien]

Originally posted by Heilige
It ended Nazism, Communism and Slavery and other evils in the world. Some people can't just be reasoned with.

And for whoever said would I kill Hitler before he started the concentration camps, are you saying you would let Hitler continue his destruction? You would sit and do nothing. Appeasement does not work with him. Ask Chamberlain. We do not have the luxury to just sit and do nothing. Do not act like talking to evil people like them is going to work. You are just falling into their plans.

If violence is such a great solution, then why is there so much of it left in the world ? We should live in a peaceful world by now, since we have been practicing violence for so long.

Violence maybe ended nazism, bu it then created genocides, because people kept believing that violence could be an aswer to anything they saw as a threat. And a "threat" that needs to be dealt with maximum force is open to a lot of subjectivity. As for communism and slavery, they still exist. I agree that some people can't be reasoned with. But when it does happen in your everyday life, why don't people just beat up (because killing would be excessive in the case of a social example) those they can't reason ? Why does the parent doesn't beat up his unresonable kid ? Why does the teacher doesn't break his students legs ? Why am I not verbally violent with everyone who doesn't agree wit me on this site ? And most importantly, why can we accept internationally what we can't accept socially ?

Life isn't black or white. It's grey. Hitler really believed that what he did was in his country best interest. Given the power to stop Hitler, I would immediatly. But I would never kill a baby. Because something great can always come for something horrific. We saw so much of the worse in human kind during WWII that we now know where we never want to go again. I'm not saying it's right. But killing Hitler as a baby could only mean that someone worse would have take his place. And that maybe, people would still close their eyes today when they see horrors like concentration camps. It's WWII that opened people eyes about the cruelty going on around the world. And that's what gave us the determination to fight it. That's why no nuclears weapons were used during the Cold War.

Hitler is always the selected dictator in those kind of arguments because we can't do anything anymore about him, so he is easy to discuss about. But there is at least 60 countries in the world that are still ruled by dictators. Who helps them ? Who talks about killing those dictators ? Where are those occidental countries that are claiming themselves freedom fighters ?

I am trying to understand your view. Are you a pacifist? Dealing with Hitler in 1938 instead of appeasing him like Chamberlain would have been the better option. Appeasement does not work bro. If we use your viewpoint we might as well do nothing then. Let all the evil dictators out there do what they want. The President of Iran wants to blow up Israel. You think talking to him is goign to solve anything. You were against WWII? You didn't want to stop communism? I am just confused. You wouln't want to confrot evils out there if there was no other way?

Yes, I'm a pacifist I guess. But don't get me wrong : I would defend myself from any violent act towards me or my loved ones. I would just never initiate an act of violence.

As for appeasement, I will use the classic old example of it : Ghandi.

I'm not saying we should do nothing about violence. I just think we just shouldn't resort to it as a first solution. Or be an hypocrite about it : most occidental countries fights "evil dictators" when it's in their best economical interests. Why do you think there are so little military interventions in Africa ? Because there is no money there.

I think the best way for Iran to blow up Israel is for us to attack him, and make him desperate enough to press a fatal button.

I would use violence but as a last solution.

I have nothing against communism. It's totalitarism I'm against.

One powerful leader of North America? Are you taling about Bush? I am not even going to get in it if you are, because I believe you are wrong if you were about to say something deragotory about him.

Some people can't be reasoned with. They only understand force. It is very sad. Do nothing and Hitler would have ruled the world. Stalin, Pol pot, Mao, Hussein and it goes on and on. Those people can't be reasoned with.

And those enemy soldiers are a danger to America and our way of life. We don't have a Superman in real life so we can't just sit on Hitler like you suggest.

I just want to say again that I'm not for total pacifism. I'm for violence as a last solution.

Yes, I was indeed talking about Georges Bush. It's funny you say that Stalin, Pol Pot and all cannot be reasoned with, because it's seems that Bush can't be either. He is the first one to bypass a war interdiction from the ONU. He went to invade Irak even though there was no weapon of massive destruction. He is staying in Irak despite most of politicians being against it, including people of his own cabinet, and despite the desire of a good portion of the population to stop that war. It's pretty much his way or no way.

I don't believe for a minute that anyone but extremists are a danger to America or our way of life, just like I don't believe that the USA are a danger to the rest of the world except for a minority of extremists that want us to believe that they are fighting for justice.

If there was less violence in the world and less people that thinks it's an acceptable solution, there would probably be less tragedies like Virginia Tech.

EDIT : All right, I'm done :)

[freefall]

Originally posted by Heilige
It ended Nazism, Communism and Slavery and other evils in the world. Some people can't just be reasoned with.

And for whoever said would I kill Hitler before he started the concentration camps, are you saying you would let Hitler continue his destruction? You would sit and do nothing. Appeasement does not work with him. Ask Chamberlain. We do not have the luxury to just sit and do nothing. Do not act like talking to evil people like them is going to work. You are just falling into their plans.

But does it automatically give anyone the right to simply go up to these people and kill them, because that's what they deserve? If we do away with them, and then what? Chaos would still be there, and probably would just make things even worse than before.

While I can agree with the statement that sometimes force is necessary, violence should never be the first solution.

[Heilige]

Originally posted by Martin le Magicien
If violence is such a great solution, then why is there so much of it left in the world ? We should live in a peaceful world by now, since we have been practicing violence for so long.

Violence maybe ended nazism, bu it then created genocides, because people kept believing that violence could be an aswer to anything they saw as a threat. And a "threat" that needs to be dealt with maximum force is open to a lot of subjectivity. As for communism and slavery, they still exist. I agree that some people can't be reasoned with. But when it does happen in your everyday life, why don't people just beat up (because killing would be excessive in the case of a social example) those they can't reason ? Why does the parent doesn't beat up his unresonable kid ? Why does the teacher doesn't break his students legs ? Why am I not verbally violent with everyone who doesn't agree wit me on this site ? And most importantly, why can we accept internationally what we can't accept socially ?

Life isn't black or white. It's grey. Hitler really believed that what he did was in his country best interest. Given the power to stop Hitler, I would immediatly. But I would never kill a baby. Because something great can always come for something horrific. We saw so much of the worse in human kind during WWII that we now know where we never want to go again. I'm not saying it's right. But killing Hitler as a baby could only mean that someone worse would have take his place. And that maybe, people would still close their eyes today when they see horrors like concentration camps. It's WWII that opened people eyes about the cruelty going on around the world. And that's what gave us the determination to fight it. That's why no nuclears weapons were used during the Cold War.

Hitler is always the selected dictator in those kind of arguments because we can't do anything anymore about him, so he is easy to discuss about. But there is at least 60 countries in the world that are still ruled by dictators. Who helps them ? Who talks about killing those dictators ? Where are those occidental countries that are claiming themselves freedom fighters ?



Yes, I'm a pacifist I guess. But don't get me wrong : I would defend myself from any violent act towards me or my loved ones. I would just never initiate an act of violence.

As for appeasement, I will use the classic old example of it : Ghandi.

I'm not saying we should do nothing about violence. I just think we just shouldn't resort to it as a first solution. Or be an hypocrite about it : most occidental countries fights "evil dictators" when it's in their best economical interests. Why do you think there are so little military interventions in Africa ? Because there is no money there.

I think the best way for Iran to blow up Israel is for us to attack him, and make him desperate enough to press a fatal button.

I would use violence but as a last solution.

I have nothing against communism. It's totalitarism I'm against.



I just want to say again that I'm not for total pacifism. I'm for violence as a last solution.

Yes, I was indeed talking about Georges Bush. It's funny you say that Stalin, Pol Pot and all cannot be reasoned with, because it's seems that Bush can't be either. He is the first one to bypass a war interdiction from the ONU. He went to invade Irak even though there was no weapon of massive destruction. He is staying in Irak despite most of politicians being against it, including people of his own cabinet, and despite the desire of a good portion of the population to stop that war. It's pretty much his way or no way.

I don't believe for a minute that anyone but extremists are a danger to America or our way of life, just like I don't believe that the USA are a danger to the rest of the world except for a minority of extremists that want us to believe that they are fighting for justice.

If there was less violence in the world and less people that thinks it's an acceptable solution, there would probably be less tragedies like Virginia Tech.

EDIT : All right, I'm done :)

You are wrong about Bush. I said NOT EVERYONE can be appeased. As far as Iraq's WMD I will not get into that with you. Please do not say things about Bush that are not facts. You don't suppor the Iraq War. Fine. But don't act like that the war is wrong. That is your opinion.

[Martin le Magicien]

Originally posted by Heilige
You are wrong about Bush. I said NOT EVERYONE can be appeased. As far as Iraq's WMD I will not get into that with you. Please do not say things about Bush that are not facts. You don't suppor the Iraq War. Fine. But don't act like that the war is wrong. That is your opinion.

It's a fact that there is no weapon of mass destruction in Irak, as it's a fact that Bush is the first ONU member to directly ignore an ONU decision for peace, and it's also a fact that a good percentage of the United States population wants the war to end, and that Bush is ignoring them since he wants to put even more money in the war effort.

Your way to promote peace is to say that the Irak war is justified, my way to promote peace is to state my disagreement with the Irak war and wars in general. I'm not sure why I shouldn't act like my opinions dictates me to though.

[SupeK]

I liked the director's cut version way better. It was slowed down and more drawn out. Much more dramatic. I was looking forward to that scene. But the aired epi went by too quick and almost seemed like Clark didn't even hesitate, he just was slower than usual.

[biggkoz]

So where is the directors cut? I looked but maybe the time for it being up is over?

[SaberFireTiger]

I thought it was funny. He hesitated and then just shoved him out of the way.


The director's cut is on youtube btw.

[xrayvision]

Originally posted by Martin le Magicien
If violence is such a great solution, then why is there so much of it left in the world ? We should live in a peaceful world by now, since we have been practicing violence for so long.

Because all the free countries of the world are not coming together to put pressure on the dictatorships that oppress the people who live in them (and if that fails take out the oppressors militarily). If this happened, then the world would be a much better place IMO.

Violence maybe ended nazism, bu it then created genocides, because people kept believing that violence could be an aswer to anything they saw as a threat. And a "threat" that needs to be dealt with maximum force is open to a lot of subjectivity. As for communism and slavery, they still exist. I agree that some people can't be reasoned with. But when it does happen in your everyday life, why don't people just beat up (because killing would be excessive in the case of a social example) those they can't reason ? Why does the parent doesn't beat up his unresonable kid ? Why does the teacher doesn't break his students legs ? Why am I not verbally violent with everyone who doesn't agree wit me on this site ? And most importantly, why can we accept internationally what we can't accept socially ?

Nobody is saying to use it all over the place. But when there is a significant enough threat that would pose a danger to the world, the threat should definitely be dealt with however possible if it can't be reasoned with.

Life isn't black or white. It's grey. Hitler really believed that what he did was in his country best interest. Given the power to stop Hitler, I would immediatly. But I would never kill a baby. Because something great can always come for something horrific. We saw so much of the worse in human kind during WWII that we now know where we never want to go again. I'm not saying it's right. But killing Hitler as a baby could only mean that someone worse would have take his place. And that maybe, people would still close their eyes today when they see horrors like concentration camps. It's WWII that opened people eyes about the cruelty going on around the world. And that's what gave us the determination to fight it. That's why no nuclears weapons were used during the Cold War.

Since this thread is about Superman, I think he wouldn't kill Hitler, but physically remove him from power and bring him to an international group for justice. He would also then disarm Hitler's army without killing them and make them powerless so that they would have to give up without fighting. Since there is no Superman in real life, this wasn't an option. But I think it's important to note that Superman first appeared in the times of the Great Depression and was mainly an American hero. I even have some of the 1940's cartoons on tape when some channel aired them and remember seeing an episode where Superman was disarming and stopping the Axis powers. The reason why no nukes were fired during the Cold War was that there were 2 countries with sizable firepower that both understood the consequences of what would happen if each fired first. And they both cared about life and weren't suicidal like several other dictators of the world who have or would have these weapons are/were.

Hitler is always the selected dictator in those kind of arguments because we can't do anything anymore about him, so he is easy to discuss about. But there is at least 60 countries in the world that are still ruled by dictators. Who helps them ? Who talks about killing those dictators ? Where are those occidental countries that are claiming themselves freedom fighters ?

Why is it the only the occidental freedom fighters that have to help? Countries that free people in the wars they fight must first fight the wars that have the greatest impact on national/international security first. There are several other countries other than the U.S. who are not in war but can help those countries. I'm sure everyone would wish that the world wasn't as messed up as it is now so that we could focus on Africa instead. If the African dictators are to get nuclear weapons too, then be assured that region would also be a focus of the world.

Yes, I'm a pacifist I guess. But don't get me wrong : I would defend myself from any violent act towards me or my loved ones. I would just never initiate an act of violence.

I don't think coming to the defense of the defenseless is considered initiating an act of violence. If a woman was getting raped or was about to and I was around to stop it, you can bet anything that I would. And I don't think in doing so, I would be the one initiating the act of violence.

As for appeasement, I will use the classic old example of it : Ghandi.

I can understand that. But unfortunately there are people so dangerous that if left alone, they would devour everything they can.

I'm not saying we should do nothing about violence. I just think we just shouldn't resort to it as a first solution. Or be an hypocrite about it : most occidental countries fights "evil dictators" when it's in their best economical interests. Why do you think there are so little military interventions in Africa ? Because there is no money there.

Same here. I think violence should be a last resort. But I think many people are in denial that on many cases in modern society, we are at the last resort. As far as military interventions in Africa, see what I wrote above.

I think the best way for Iran to blow up Israel is for us to attack him, and make him desperate enough to press a fatal button.

I would use violence but as a last solution.

I unfortunately don't think there is any reasoning with that guy. He's just trying to buy time for his nukes to be complete so that nobody can take action against him anymore.

I have nothing against communism. It's totalitarism I'm against.

I'm not sure if you ever lived under it or not, but it's usually those who never did who are not against it. My parents were born in a country that for a while was communist and they know how bad it is. The stuff that is done against the people are horrible.

I just want to say again that I'm not for total pacifism. I'm for violence as a last solution.

Well, as long as the last solution is not too late, then what you're saying makes sense.

Yes, I was indeed talking about Georges Bush. It's funny you say that Stalin, Pol Pot and all cannot be reasoned with, because it's seems that Bush can't be either. He is the first one to bypass a war interdiction from the ONU. He went to invade Irak even though there was no weapon of massive destruction. He is staying in Irak despite most of politicians being against it, including people of his own cabinet, and despite the desire of a good portion of the population to stop that war. It's pretty much his way or no way.

We only found out that there are no weapons of mass destruction after going there. Several presidents, congressmen & the U.N. all believed that there were weapons, which is why inspectors were always sent. If there were no weapons, then why did Saddam not let the inspectors stay until they were finished and then leave? I think it's ridiculous that someone with so much power & a lavish life would sacrifice it all for nothing. Personally, I still believe that there were weapons that were moved before the war started. We know Hussein gassed the Kurds and had scientists. The majority of Congress voted for the war and gave him the clearance even though Saddam violated the terms that ended the first Gulf War, which was reason itself for war.

I don't believe for a minute that anyone but extremists are a danger to America or our way of life, just like I don't believe that the USA are a danger to the rest of the world except for a minority of extremists that want us to believe that they are fighting for justice.

But, extremists include many people. Some may say that the countries where the 19 hijackers who caused 9/11 came from don't have extremists, but we know how that ended up. The saying that oceans no longer protect countries is true.

If there was less violence in the world and less people that thinks it's an acceptable solution, there would probably be less tragedies like Virginia Tech.

I wish it was, believe me. But that was done by a very sick person, and unfortunately those will exist until the end of humanity. I think the only way to totally prevent something like that from happening is setting up all colleges, schools and businesses like a prison where they are surrounded by a fence have have a certain amount of guarded entry points where everyone would have to be screened with a metal detector and checked whenever they entered or left the campus (including visitors). That would be a lifestyle that no student or employee would like to live. I'm guessing the best reasonable way to stop it would be to make it so that people who recognize danger signs won't be afraid to say something so that someone who is dangerous like that can be taken into a mental institution and be given the help they need without fear of lawsuits or retaliation. I heard from many people on the news that people tried to be nice to him and talk but he wouldn't reply to them. It was a case where even though he was treated nice, he still had a hatred against society.

This is the last I will post about this political stuff regardless of any debates that may try to form since I always hate these threads and try to stay away from them. I respect your opinion & hope you respect mine. Anyway, getting back to the topic, if there was a Superman, I think knowing he has the power to kill if he wanted, he would refrain from doing so, but would instead prevent those who are evil from killing. In the case of Smallville, I think if Clark already had the ID/cover of Superman, he would kidnap Lex & hold him somewhere until Chloe can write her story on him and then release him back into society so that he can face justice for what he's done. That is the most humane way I can think of stopping someone like Lex without letting him go to commit more crimes. The only times I think he would use lethal force is against an alien or superhuman evil that may not be stopped any other way (like Doomsday).

[Heilige]

That was beautiful xrayvision! Very good post! Everything I wanted to say and more. :) :D

[Mischael12]

How did this change from Superman to Acts of violence?

Superman is supposed to represent the best in humanity (the best in humanity is capable of dealing with things without having to kill someone).

Violence is as much a part of humanity as is altruism, its just deciding in what case the former should be used

As well sorry for the double post.

To Kill Hitler before he has done anything just because you know he will is not really your choice.

It might be considered the best thing, but if you do it before he does anything it isn't justice its murder.

[dmrios88]

save lex from being hit from the gun chloe shot off. then he wouldnt have to worry about lex and all his problems and he wouldnt even get blamed for killing him. who cares if chloe killed him it would have been done in self defense. clark is an idiot he always saves him for no reason. and lanas an idiot for listening to lionel. this whole show is starting to piss me off. 90 percent of the episode is god damn commercials. there always in the hospital and nothing cool is getting done. all i see is how this show is falling apart more and more. pete was a better character than clark and so was whitney. lana is hot as **** though

[MetroGirl06]

Not saving Lex would have broken all Superman moral codes. Shame that your first post goes into bashing. tsk tsk

[jragbir2]

You can see that he hesitated, but Clark just isn't like that, unless hes on red krypto

[AndiGirl]

That's not who Clark is...plus, chloe is the one who pulled the trigger...and she would have to live with knowing she killed Lex. Clark couldn't do that to her.

[SheaMan]

but sure did remind me of the time Lex nearly failed to save Lionel.

[norman619]

Saving Lex makes him resp for everything Lex does. It's pretty lame that the writers place him in these rediculous situations. It's frustrating that they give him all this power then castrate him and keep him from doing the right thing. By not nipping it in the bud as they say he is allowing Lex to torment more innocent people. I laughed when Clark said he was going to go to war with Lex. I was like, "What are you goona do? Hurle mighty insults at him? Hurt his feelings really bad?" Clark doesn't have the balls to deal with Lex the way he should.

Originally posted by AndiGirl
That's not who Clark is...plus, chloe is the one who pulled the trigger...and she would have to live with knowing she killed Lex. Clark couldn't do that to her.

Sorry but I doubt she'd shed many tears for offing the guy who's been holding and manipulating her mother and who knows what else. PLUS she'd have no memory of that. She'd only know if Clark told her what she did while under mom's influence. But yeah I'm sre that's what the writers would do. Have her shed tears for a waste of flesh like Lex. Some people/things simply need killing. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by MetroGirl06
Not saving Lex would have broken all Superman moral codes. Shame that your first post goes into bashing. tsk tsk

LOL!!! Yes let's keep the man of steel spineless and missing his male genetalia. It would be nice to have him kill someone that needed killing. The closest we came to that was his fight with Titan. And THAT was a joke.

[uselessuses]

Anyone else catch the part where Chloe shot at Lex and Clark comes super speeding but hesitates a little before pushing Lex out of the way.

[dmrios88]

clark is needs balls , he wouldnt even bang out lana wen he had his powers back which is retarded. chloe wouldnt have cared if she did kill lex after everything that went on throughout many different episodes. the only time clark had the balls to kill his ass was wen he was on red krypto and beat his ass during the dinner. clark pisses me off every episode with his **** like wen he had a million chances to tell lana the truth and everything would have been fine. or how stupid he was to go bak in time and save her and then his father had to die. why didnt his ass just do everything the same tell lana the truth and propose and then pull the bus like he did the second time. this **** pisses me off

[wmthor]

We'll first he thought:
A guy like him deserves to die.

Then:
I can't let Chloe kill him. I'm a killer if I don't save him.

Superman would never let anyone die even his greatest enemy.

[Superbeard]

Superman is not about "whether he gets caught or blamed for it or not." Superman is all about what's right.

And diabolical motives or not, Chloe's shooting Lex would've been outright murder. Clark saw and had the opportunity to stop it. If he had chosen not to, he might as well have just murdered Lex himself.

Though I did really like the hesitation in the slow-mo sequence.

And, I might add, uh, continuity anyone? Lex Luthor isn't "allowed" to die in this "prequel" saga. Just like Lana, Clark, and Lois aren't either.

When you watch Smallville, a lot of the drama and suspense is automatically taken out because of this continuity. With at least half the characters, it's not a matter of edge-of-your-seat "Is he gonna make it!? Is he gonna make it!?" but rather "How's he gonna make it!? How's he gonna make it!?"

[InLove_with_Chloe]

Clark does not want Chloe to become a murderer, c'mon....

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Would Superman have killed Hitler?
No.

Superman does NOT do "our job" for us.
If "we" ( a people) have issues with a tyrant or dictator, whatever, WE have to do somethign about, like we always have done.

Its NOT Superman's place to do that.

He leads by example and doing what has been suggested because of his close to omnipotent powers, would be simple and abuse of power.

He does not make the final decision, nor should he, its not his place.
It's ours.

With Super powers must come Super morals, and that is what Superman stands for.

[Heilige]

Originally posted by Kryptonian-Ronin
Would Superman have killed Hitler?
No.

Superman does NOT do "our job" for us.
If "we" ( a people) have issues with a tyrant or dictator, whatever, WE have to do somethign about, like we always have done.

Its NOT Superman's place to do that.

He leads by example and doing what has been suggested because of his close to omnipotent powers, would be simple and abuse of power.

He does not make the final decision, nor should he, its not his place.
It's ours.

With Super powers must come Super morals, and that is what Superman stands for.

Who are YOU to say whose place it is to do this and that? Why are you saying all of this as if it is fact; Superman abusing his powers by taking someone out who is a threat to the entire world?

And, if it isn't Superman's place to do things and it is up to us humans isn't that they way Lex feels? You say Superman does not do our job for us. Then why does he go about saving people. Leave that up to US humans then. Like you say. Everyhting you have said is your opinion. You sound like you are passing it off as fact. What I have said is my opinion, nothing more.

[Radioflyer]

Originally posted by nightshadz
That push should have killed Lex. A bullet a foot way from his face would have required Clark to shove him faster than the bullet was traveling. :lol: Ditto. It would have been more logical for Clark to reach out and grab the bullet like he did in Combat when that guy tried to shoot Clark. But this was better for the action value.

[Kryptonian-Ronin]

Originally posted by Heilige
Who are YOU to say whose place it is to do this and that? Why are you saying all of this as if it is fact; Superman abusing his powers by taking someone out who is a threat to the entire world?

And, if it isn't Superman's place to do things and it is up to us humans isn't that they way Lex feels? You say Superman does not do our job for us. Then why does he go about saving people. Leave that up to US humans then. Like you say. Everyhting you have said is your opinion. You sound like you are passing it off as fact. What I have said is my opinion, nothing more.

Actually, since we are talking about Superman the comic book hero, or the movie hero, it is fact, not my opinion.
Its been stated over and over in terms of Superman's character.

This is a discussion about a fictional character, don't take it or make it personal, that's uncalled for.

[kal-el_Girl]

I think that he was even bother by the idea of saving lex again, but he's superman and he won't let anyone die, so is like
"do I act the way I really want to act or do I do the right thing.?" Oh that's my dilema as well.