Chlois (Chloe=Lois) Debate Thread: Part VI

[La Donna]

Clark can't escape his Kryptonian roots and that's definitely going to come back and haunt him this season, but this year will be more about moving forward with his destiny as becoming Superman in a way that we've never done before."

Which is exactly what has been portrayed in Season 8. Clark has moved forward by starting at the DP, becoming committed to his hero duties, and moving closer to Lois, all of which defines his future as Superman.

As for others who discount what the producers/showrunners/cast/behind the scenes workers/etc. say, I think it's illogical to take one or two things they say and hold them as fact or hints to the future, but then discount everything else that they've said as lies or confusion. The fact of the matter is that everyone related to this show that has been interviewed has said point blank that Chlois is never going to happen, was never planned, is not planned for the future, and will not happen. After that, the mountain of evidence the show provides is just icing on the cake.

As for Chloe being shown as sympathetic making her "cinderella", I think they made Chloe sympathetic because she's one of the good guys. She's Clark's best friend, as well as a hero in her own right. She's now officially joined the JL. I'd say feeling sorry for her has been a series long development as she's become a hero.

As for Clana showing us that they weren't right for each other, I would argue that is a great example for Chlois not happening. Al/Miles were obsessed with KK and Lana. They said in the first season that when the show ended, that's when they were going to end Clana, and only because they had to in order to line up with the mythos. They went to great lengths to show Clark's love/obsession with Lana, because they felt Lana was a great (if not the greatest) love of Clark's life. To say that we were shown how wrong they were for each other is true, as a majority of the fandom disliked Clana and the Lana character, and didn't want Clark to give Lana another shot. But, that's not how Al/Miles saw it. They saw it as outside influences always getting in the way of Clark and Lana's great love. So, while the audience walked away feeling that Clark and Lana can and should never find happiness with each other because of what the show told us, Al/Miles walked away believing they showed us a couple who couldn't be together anymore because the deck was stacked against them. So, to people who see the show as being written to prove Chlois, I would say that even if you see foreshadowing type behavior and subtle hints that tell you Chlois should be the end point, it doesn't mean that is the end point.

The show has a tendency to drop heavy anvils that point to the future. It doesn't really do subtle. It's anvils that everyone can see and know to be anvils. The characters who have gotten them are Lex, Clark and Lois, and now Doomsday. They get obvious anvils. They rest may get little subtle winks, but not anvils. The Lois anvils are the biggest of all, such as being told by a psychic that she will end up with a guy who wears tights and loves to fly. They're anvils that everyone can see, whether they love or hate Lois. Those are anvils. Chloe's slippers do not qualify in the same way, as any number of arguments can be made for what they symbolize, and an equal argument could be made that they meant nothing other than the fact that something weird was going on and two seconds later we see that Chloe's slippers don't fit because her body is now Lois's body.

To say they made Lois into the obvious step-sister can't be taken as a fact, since a huge portion of the audience love Lois and think she's a great rendition of the iconic Lois Lane. Therefore, the statement that it's "obvious that Lois is the step-sister" is illogical as it doesn't compute with audience sentiments, except for a certain portion of the audience that is not the majority.

The Legion not recognizing Clark also is invalid. When they showed up, they absolutely recognized him. Didn't Garth merely ask "Hey CK, where's your glasses?". That indicates they knew exactly who Clark was. And since we learned so little about the Legion and their origins in that episode, I think most of us familiar with the Legion knew enough from the mythos to fully understand their characterizations and their history. Those who weren't familiar with the Legion got enough of an explanation to understand their purpose in the show. But, since we didn't find out much about the museum in the 31st century, I think that it can be assumed that the museum from the mythos is the museum mentioned for a moment in the show. Therefore, the basics involving the museum would be a carry over from mythos to Smallville, including information on Lois Lane and pictures/holograms. When they saw Chloe and heard her name they went out of their way to show that the Legion had no idea who Clark was talking about.

And the Legion didn't put out death or Chlois as Chloe's only options. They said three things, either that Chloe helped him embrace his abilities, or Chloe's name was changed in order to protect her, or Chloe died which caused Clark to finally take flight. Chloe would not change her name to her cousin who is a known reporter in order to protect her from anyone who wants to seek out Chloe to find her. That would defeat the purpose of making "Chloe Sullivan" change her name so that others seeking to do her harm can't find her. I believe it was referring to either a new name altogether, or Watchtower. I think she'd need to change her name (if she ends up changing it) to hide from Doomsday/Davis should he ever escape the phantom zone or show up in the future down the road. I think her being Watchtower will also keep her safe from people seeking Chloe, and will give her a place to live or hang out that is protected. If that doesn't happen, I think she'll still be Chloe next season and merely the additional name of Watchtower is used when she's working.

In my opinion, the three choices that the Legion speculated for Chloe is the three obvious end points for her character on this show. She has filled the role and continues to do so in helping Clark with his abilities and supporting him. Should she die, it seems obvious to me at least that she would die and that will push Clark forward (perhaps flight), or that because Chloe isn't in the comics, her name will be changed in order to give her a future in Clark's life.

In Hex, it's indisputable that Chloe began the episode saying "Lois is living my life" (which the audience would take to mean that Lois in the DP working with Clark is the life Chloe had always said she wanted in the past), and then in the end she said "That's someone else's life" (which to the audience meant that Lois's future was with Clark and the DP and Chloe's was with Clark and JL as watchtower). Hex could be considered a response to the audience as to Chloe's role in the future and this show. Anyone who thought Chloe still desired to be a DP reporter was shown that they didn't just sweep Chloe's entire history under the rug because they had her state her feelings that Lois is living the life she had wanted. Anyone who wondered if Chloe has a place in the future received confirmation that Chloe has an important role as a hero, becoming Watchtower officially for the JL. Anyone who felt that Lois did nothing to show she's a reporter was shown what fills up Lois's offscreen time, being a reporter. We saw stories she had completed, her growing reputation because of her writing and investigating, and how Lois gets contacts and sources (her personal friendships and random people that she has come to know and define her journalistic style). This episode also showed why Chloe is important to this telling of Smallville. She's Clark's best friend and in a way knows him better than anyone else on the show right now, and she is the perfect person to provide encouragement, support, and to have a role in the hero squad.

I haven't posted here in awhile, mostly because I feel the argument has officially been disproved, but also because most of my time is spent defending Chloe in other threads. Chloe is one of my favorite characters, and I think it'd be a waste and a horrible mistake to kill her off, but I also think it'd be just as big a mistake to take away her role as Watchtower and friend to Clark by trying to move her into the role that Lois has, as future love interest and full time reporter. Lois is one of my other favorites, but I spend more time defending Chloe because so many on K-site seem to be against her these days. It's become very anti-Chloe, which makes me sad because when I came here almost a year ago, I felt like it was an equal mix of fan groups.

Because I like Chloe, I wanted Chlark to have a relationship before Clark moved on in the future to Lois. But as a Chloe fan, once season 6 started, I stopped wanting it because I was sick of Chloe feeling rejected over and over by Clark. Plus, that's when they really started laying out why Lois will end up being a great match for him, and Chloe finally got a guy who loved Chloe for who she was and wanted her and not Lois and not Lana. While I still hope someone else falls for Chloe next season and she gets to have an official hero of the JL to be with, they've gone way too far to make Chloe and Clark ever believably have a romance. Clark has made it overly clear that he doesn't and won't ever view Chloe in that light. Chloe has made it clear in the past three seasons that she no longer views Clark in that light and she doesn't want to have that type of relationship with him again. And now, Lois is in love with Clark, and we see that Clark has fallen for Lois. That's the future. Just as they said season 8 would move Clark into his future.

[Pitbull On A Pantleg]

Because I like Chloe, I wanted Chlark to have a relationship before Clark moved on in the future to Lois. But as a Chloe fan, once season 6 started, I stopped wanting it because I was sick of Chloe feeling rejected over and over by Clark.

About the same time I stopped wanting to see Clark and Chloe together for even a short time, I also started to get irritated with Chloe. Here was this perfectly normal, lovely young woman who'd been asked out on dates by several young men. Heck, she had the opportunity to ask any single guy out any time she wanted. Yet, she kept pining after Clark, choosing to spend her time pouting over the fact that Clark loved Lana and not her, and getting irrationally angry because they didn't share their deepest secrets with her.

Then, she sold Clark out for a column, all because she saw him kissing the girl he loved, and I lost all respect for her character. Clark had made it abundantly clear that he had no interest in Chloe other than friendship, but she chose, over and over, to pin her hopes on the fact that he might one day "fly back to her".

To put this in context of the Chlois argument, I prefer my Lois to be a much stronger person than that. And Lois has proven herself to be stronger than Chloe.

[Herod]

Debunking Common Chlois Myths with Factual Evidence and Verifiable Sources

Debunking Common Chlois Myths with Factual Evidence and Verifiable Sources

R.I.P CHLOIS - Myth #1
Originally Alfred Gough and Miles Millar intended to make the Chloe Sullivan character into Lois Lane. That was their idea from the very beginning, but somewhere along season 3, they changed their minds and decided to “light-switch” the arrival of Lois Lane.

Debunking Myth #1:
As many of you probably know, this very site (Krypton Site.com) hosted the very first Alfred Gough interview. This interview was conducted at the very beginning of Smallville, before the first episode had even aired. When Craig asked about seeing Lois Lane in the series, this is what Alfred Gough responded:

CB: Will we see Lois Lane in the series?

AG: Yes you will. I can't really say how, but with DC Comics' blessing, she will definitely feature somewhere down the road. She could potentially visit Smallville or our gang could meet up with her in Metropolis.

Source: http://www.kryptonsite.com/gough.htm


“Series developer Al Gough contends that it was always the producer’s intention to bring in the iconic Lois Lane, they just needed a good reason to do it—”

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-durance_x.htm

Questions:
(1) How can Lois Lane be featured down the road if she already exists in the show?
(2) How can Lois Lane visit Smallville if she already lives in Smallville?
(3) How can Lois Lane meet up with the gang (Clark, Lana, Chloe, Pete) if she is part of that gang?
(4) How can Chloe Sullivan be Lois Lane when Al Gough makes it clear DC Comics has not yet given their blessing to use the character?

Answers:
(1) She can’t.
(2) She can’t.
(3) She can’t.
(4) Because Chloe Sullivan is not Lois Lane. Al Gough clearly does not have permission to use the character at the time of this interview, but still has hopes that “down the road” he will get “DC Comic’s blessing” and Lois Lane will finally appear in Smallville. And of course, his comment about Lois Lane appearing down the road and visiting Smallville turned out to be spot on. Lois Lane literally drove down a road in the first episode on her way to visit Smallville for the first time.

Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Pre-Season 1, Chances of Chlois happening= 0
R.I.P Chloe – Myth #2
The writers had Chloe Sullivan using Lois Lane’s name in Season 3 long before they had even considered bringing in EDLois. When Chloe used that pen name it was a way for the writers to let us know that Chlois would happen in the future. Of course, then AlMiles used this for their own purpose and actually made Lois Chloe’s cousin.

Debunking Myth #2
I’ve heard this argument countless time and it’s just factually wrong on so many levels. First of all, Lois Lane had already been differentiated as a separate character to Chloe Sullivan (see Debunking Myth #1) by the creator of the series before Smallville had aired its first episode. Secondly, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar had mentioned the arrival of the Lois Lane character and her role as Chloe Sullivan’s cousin two years (that’s right, two years) before the episode where Chloe Sullivan uses Lois’s name (which by the way is called “Delete”).

Now, “Delete” was episode 11 of season 3 and aired January 28, 2004. Two years before this episode aired, at the 2002 Comic Con convention, Al Gough and Miles Millar were quoted to stating the following:

Millar and Gough, who are also incidentally writing a scipt for Sony's Spider-Man 2, were for the most part open to discussing many of the questions fans had for them. When asked by one fan whether the character of Lana Lang was related to Lois Lane, the two clarified that they were not, but that Lois Lane is indeed the cousin of Chloe Sullivan.

Source: http://www.mania.com/bcomicconb-bism...cle_88787.html

Two years after the comment made in this Smallville convention, and right before the episode “Delete” actually aired, Al Gough was asked again about Lois Lane, and this was his response:

When asked if Chloe is indeed the cousin of Lois Lane, Gough reminds us of what was said at the San Diego Comic Con in 2002, so apparently the plan for that character has not been altered and they are indeed cousins.

Source: http://smallville.forumcommunity.net/?t=490326

So years before Chloe Sullivan used the name of Lois Lane to pen her Daily Planet articles, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar made their intention to make Lois Lane Chloe Sullivan’s cousin. The statement about AlMiles first creating the episode “Delete” and then using the comment about Lois being Chloe’s cousin to create SV-Lois’s character is completely false. These men knew what they wanted to do with Lois Lane since day one. So to recap:

Questions:
(1) How could Chloe Sullivan using the name of “Lois Lane” in the third season be a hint of the Chlois twist to come when two years prior Al Gough had already commented on his plan to bring in the character of Lois Lane to the series and make her Chloe’s cousin, which would in effect kill the Chlois theory?
(2) If the plan to *really* make Lois Lane Chloe’s cousin was such a light-switch concept then why did Al Gough mention the plan early on and then confirm the plan two years later?

Answers:
(1) Chloe using Lois’s name had nothing to do with the Chlois theory. It was more than likely used because creatively it fit the storyline. Not everything that the writers write has to have a million and one hidden meanings.
(2) Because neither bringing in Lois Lane nor making her Chloe Sullivan’s cousin was light-switch. Just because IN THE STORY we didn’t hear about Lois Lane being Chloe’s cousin until season 3 (Delete) and just because we didn’t see Lois Lane in person until season 4 (Crusade) doesn’t mean that they were light-switch ideas. Al Gough clearly had the idea to bring Lois Lane into the series since day one and was consistent with his comments about it year after year.


Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Seasons 1-3, Chances of Chlois happening= 0


R.I.P Chlois – Myth #3
AlMiles always had the rights to use the Lois Lane character. They even planned on doing a Lois Lane series. In one interview they even said it only took them a phone call to get Lois Lane into Smallville. So how hard could it have been to make Chloe Sullivan ILL in season 1?

Debunking the Myth #3
Well first of all let me just say that the statement sounds rather contrived. It is stating that Chloe Sullivan is Lois Lane since season 1 and yet it’s also confirming the fact that Al Gough and Miles Millar had to make a phone call to get permission to use Lois Lane. So if a phone call had to be made (easy or not) wouldn’t that mean automatically that prior to that phone call Gough and Millar didn’t have permission to use Lois Lane?

Regardless of this logic (or lack thereof) the plan to have Lois Lane in the series was always part of the plan and it was always a matter of getting the rights from the film division. Don’t take my word for it though, read these sources:

SOURCE #1

And then there's Lois Lane. The iconic character (played by Erica Durance) made her debut in the premiere of Season 4, and has enlivened the series with love-hate banter with Clark that, for now, veers much more toward hate. Mr. Millar and Mr. Gough wanted to bring her in during Season 3 and began negotiating the labyrinthine Time Warner structure for permission from both DC Comics and the film unit to use the character. The forthcoming movie, long in development with various combinations of directors and casts, proved to be a roadblock.

The producers would like to bring Lois back for Season 5 but will again have to get approval to use the character. "We think there's a good chance," Mr. Gough said carefully, "but we don't know yet."

Source: http://archive2.tivocommunity.com/ti...d.php?t=226660


SOURCE #2

K-SITE: Was bringing Lois Lane on to the show always part of the plan?

GOUGH: Yes. The question was always with the movie division of whether or not we could do that. We initially wanted to bring her on for a full 22 episodes, and they said, well, you can have her for 13. Which was fine, so we worked out an arc for Lois for the season. But the plan was to introduce Lois into the series at some point.

And we'd really talked about it last year, and really couldn't make it work, again, with getting all the components of Time-Warner that need to sign off on these things to sign off, and so we really kept plugging away at it, especially during the hiatus. Then the feature division graciously said yes, and so we were able to introduce Lois this season.

Source: http://www.kryptonsite.com/gough0904.htm


SOURCE #3

Under the initial agreement, Durance was only to portray the character for a total of four episodes, but, after a discussion with Peter Roth over how they planned to use the character on the show—insisting that she and Clark would not be having a romantic relationship—the feature film division then cleared the character for more episodes. After the okay to bring the character back, the creative team decided to plant her in the Kent home so that she could provide a constant annoyance to Clark.

Source: Smallville Season 4 Companion Guide, pages 138-141


SOURCE #4

Gough explains that the Warner Bros. Feature Division, now in pre-production on its long-delayed SupermanReturns film, has forbidden Smallville's Lois and Clark from kissing so that anticipation for the movie romance can build. The Feature Division might even block Durance from returning at all for Season 5. "They have to approve her for more," Gough says.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-durance_x.htm


Questions:
(1) If the film division didn’t green light the character of Lois Lane until season 3, how can Chloe Sullivan who has been part of Smallville since season 1 be the real Lois Lane?
(2) How can Chloe Sullivan be Lois Lane when the movie division only allowed Lois Lane to be in 13 episodes?
(3) How can Chloe Sullivan be Lois Lane if she’s kissed Clark Kent in the series when the Feature Film division prohibited Lois and Clark from kissing?
(4) Why would AlMiles bother introducing Lois Lane if Chloe Sullivan was already Lois Lane?

Answers:
(1) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.
(2) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.
(3) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.
(4) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.


Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Season 4, Chances of Chlois happening= 0


R.I.P Chlois – Myth #4
There are no restrictions on the character of Lois Lane. That’s just something that AlMiles made up so that they could continue with their Lana obsession. So Lois doesn’t get together with Clark because he doesn’t like her since she’s nothing like the canon ILL. Not to mention that Lois didn’t even get into the Daily Planet until after Chloe was already there which makes Chloe more ILL than Lois.

Debunking Myth #4
The restrictions on the Lois Lane character are real. I have read a few people state that they are false and that just baffles me. I always thought it was common knowledge since it has been a topic of interest for so many years now, not to mention that AlMiles mention that a lot in their interviews and articles. In fact, I’ve already posted above a few mentions of the restrictions that the Lois Lane character had according to the creators of the series. So why not here it from the woman who plays the character on Smallville, too?

Erica Durance made these comments right before the beginning of the fifth season of “Smallville” :

At the convention, it was learned that Erica has signed on to do another 13 episodes for this upcoming season of Smallville on the CW, just like last year; however, she may be brought in to do more. She also said that any romantic involvement between Lois and Clark on the show is strictly forbidden by DC Comics, which owns the characters. She mentioned that the lock on such a relationship is so strong that even if there's a hint of it, Smallville is liable to be cancelled. Obviously DC Comics means business. She also revealed that fans won't be seeing her working at the Daily Planet anytime soon either (another DC Comics restriction), which must be the reason the writers have steered clear of pushing her toward journalism.

Source: http://www.johnheisel.com/

And as posted earlier, this is just one of the comments that Alfred Gough made himself in regards to the restrictions on the Lois Lane character:

Gough explains that the Warner Bros. Feature Division, now in pre-production on its long-delayed SupermanReturns film, has forbidden Smallville's Lois and Clark from kissing so that anticipation for the movie romance can build. The Feature Division might even block Durance from returning at all for Season 5. "They have to approve her for more," Gough says.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/life/televis...-durance_x.htm

Questions:
(1) If up to season 5 of Smallville there were still episode restrictions on the Lois Lane character, why didn’t that affect the character of Chloe Sullivan?
(2) If up to season 5 of Smallville there were still restrictions on any kind of romantic interaction between Lois and Clark (even a hint of it) why was Chloe always pining after Clark Kent endlessly? And why were their episodes of them locking lips?
(3) If up to season 5 of Smallville there were still restrictions on Lois Lane joining the Daily Planet, then why did Chloe work at the Daily Planet (thanks to her deal with Lionel—what a pal, right? It’s such an ILL trait to backstab your future husband) during season 3?

Answers:
(1) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.
(2) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.
(3) Because Chloe Sullivan clearly is not Lois Lane and never was Lois Lane.


Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Season 4-5, Chances of Chlois happening= 0


R.I.P Chlois – Myth #5
Smallville’s Lois Lane is the worst Lois Lane that has ever been written. She’s a complete joke and a worthless character. AlMiles obviously agree because they are not writing her anything like the Lois Lane from the Superman mythology. She started a tabloid newspaper and got inspired to be in the journalism field because of a flying barn door. What a joke. And it proves that the writers don’t take Lois Lane seriously because she’s not the ILL.

Debunking Myth #5
Besides the rift about Lois Lane not having enough credits to go to college and not graduating—which by the way, none of the characters, including the brainy Chloe, have ever done—Lois working at a tabloid and Lois getting inspired into journalism through that strange ‘barn door epiphany’ have been the main cause of criticism from Chloisers about Lois Lane. I’ve heard claims that this is being done intentionally to show to the audience that ILL is a red herring and that Chloe is the real Lois Lane.

Instead of going in circles debating this all day, let’s see what the writers have to say about all this:

For season six, the writers chose to start Lois down the path of investigative journalist, only in this version of the character she gets her start working for a tabloid newspaper. Writer Kelly Souders felt that if tabloid beginnings were good enough for Perry White—an additional character established in season three’s "Perry"—then they are good enough for Lois Lane. It adds depth to the character by showing how she struggled before becoming "the reporter we all know and love". As Lois steps closer to her ultimate destiny at the Daily Planet, the writers have continued to evolve the character by having her grow out of the "black and white" mindset and have her begin seeing shades of gray. The writers wanted her to realize that there is sometimes a middle road that has to be taken.

Source: Smallville Season 6 Companion, pages 124-127

So all this time Lois Lane gets flak for starting in the tabloid when the reasoning of the writer who actually imagined this story for Lois Lane was pretty innocent. They wrote Perry White (who someday will be her Editor) with that background so they thought why not? I also find it interesting that the whole "Barn Door Epiphany" for Lois gets her bashed quite often when it was also a flying object (a tractor) that really got Perry back on his feet and back to reporting. So as far as SV goes, the producers have drawn these subtle parallel lines between Perry and Lois (both started off in tabloids, both had supernatural events push them into or back to the journalistic field).

As far as Lois Lane not being written to be anything like the ILL from the mythology, Al Gough would disagree:

Gough says that Lois will become more of "the Lois Lane we know from the Superman mythology" as she continues to develop as a reporter, landing at the Daily Planet.

Source: http://www.fanforum.com/f15/smallvil...town-62817267/


Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Season 6, Chances of Chlois happening= 0


R.I.P Chlois - Myth #6
It was always AlMiles that were against Chlois but now the new show runners are constantly giving us clues that Chlois will happen. They even have a new promo this season that talks about the past being a lie and the future being unknown which is obviously about Chlois. PS3 support Chlois and do not want to go into the romantic territory at all.

Debunking Myth #6
I heard this statement over and over at the beginning of the season. People arguing that things would change now that AlMiles were gone and that the new producers would go full fledged Chlois. Not unless I imagined the episode "Hex" that aired a few weeks ago then I say this myth has been debunked on its own. PS3 are no more into the Chlois theory than were Alfred Gough and Miles Millar. And in case you haven't figured it out yet, they weren't into the theory at all. Not one iota.

PS3 are not into Chlois and they made that painfully clear in the episode "Hex" :

Clark: ...there's only one Lois Lane.
Lois: You better believe it.

Oliver: Chloe, this will mean leaving your old life as a report behind. You sure you're ready to say goodbye to that forever?
Chloe: You know yesterday I wouldn't have been able to answer that question. But after spending a day at the Daily Planet, I realized...that's someone else's life.

As for PS3 not wanting to go into a romantic territory with Lois and Clark, this is also false. PS3 made it very clear at the beginning of the season that the Lois and Clark dynamics would change, and they obviously have. This is what they said at last year:

Lois and Clark will be working side by side at The Daily Planet, and Lois will start to see Clark in a different way," they said. "She's surprised to see him in a suit, all grown up and handsome. It's no longer going to be played like a brother-sister relationship.

Finally, the promo that seemed to get the Chlois community so excited, actually stated the following:

Past is a lie. And Present is Changing And Future is unknown.

Of course this promotion was all about Doomsday and Clark Kent. And if you can't make sense of that on your own now that the episode "Eternal" has aired and the past was retconned then I can't do much else to help you on this one. As with the above, the myth about the promo has been debunked on its own.

Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Seasons 7-8, Chances of Chlois happening= 0


R.I.P Chlois – Myth #7
Erica Durance is a terrible actress who cannot do the Lois Lane character justice. She has absolutely no chemistry with Tom Welling and everyone hates her.

Debunking Myth #7
Now obviously this is a very subjective comment. Still, I'm choosing to debunk it simply because this type of comment gets passed down as though it is gospel truth. Erica Durance is liked as much (if not more) than her co-stars. There is sufficient evidence from the producers, her cast members, and her fans, that show that Erica Durance is a good woman who does have positive support from many places.

Erica Durance has been nominated for two Saturn Award nominations in the Best Supporting Actress category for her performance as Lois Lane. The first came in 2005, after her first season with the show, and then again the following year. Before the end of Smallville's seventh season, IGN's Daniel Phillips compared the actresses who have portrayed the character of Lois Lane over the past three decades. Up against the most recognizable version of Lois Lane, Margot Kidder, the 2006 film incarnation played by Kate Bosworth, and the previous live-action version portrayed by Teri Hatcher, Erica Durance was rated the highest. Although Phillips acknowledges that Kidder is the best representation of Lois's personality, he claims that Durance is the best overall embodiment of the character. Apart from her beauty, Phillips states, "Durance makes Lois intelligent, capable, funny and dangerously curious – exactly the type of woman Clark Kent would fall for." Mike Moody of TV Squad named Lois as one of five reasons to watch Smallville's eighth season. Moody believes that Durance's Lois is "one of the best versions of the character" because Durance plays her as a "tough, brainy, sexy and catty", which makes her portrayal that much better than Kate Bosworth's Lois Lane in Superman Returns. John Kubicek, of BuddyTV, likens the actress's performance as Lois Lane—her "stylized delivery of lines"—to that of actresses from the 1940s screwball comedy era.


Sources:

http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/19415

http://uk.stars.ign.com/articles/858/858268p1.html

http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/11/19/five-reasons-to-watch-smallville-this-season/

http://www.buddytv.com/articles/smal...lois-23517.asp


And then there’s the 5 Reasons to Watch Smallville, Lois of course is one of them:

Erica Durance's Lois Lane has to be one of the best versions of the character to hit any screen, big or small. Durance plays it tough, brainy, sexy and catty -- worlds away from Kate Bosworth's drab turn in Superman Returns. This is a Lois worthy of Clark Kent's/Superman's affections. Part of the charm of season eight comes from watching Lois and Clark butt heads, compete for stories at the Daily Planet (a la Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman) and try to hide their budding attraction to each other. Plus, Durance's Type-A performance is a welcome change from Kristen Kreuk's mopey Lana Lang. Kreuk is slated to return this Thursday, but word is she'll be back out the door after a few eps.

Source: http://www.tvsquad.com/2008/11/19/fi...e-this-season/

And of course I could spend all day here just looking for positive interviews and I’d find piles of them. The world does not hate Erica Durance nor Smallville’s Lois Lane. They do not. Some don’t like her, but that is true for every character including Clark Kent!

Questions:
(1) If Lois Lane/Erica Durance is so unpopular in Smallville, why did she get nominated multiple times for the Saturn Awards’s best supporting actress category?
(2) If Lois Lane/Erica Durance is so unpopular in Smallville, why did IGN subscribers vote SV-Lois Lane the highest when compared to other actresses who have played Lois Lane? Including Margot Kidder and Teri Hatcher?
(3) If Lois Lane/Erica Durance is so unpopular in Smallville, why was she selected as one of the five reasons to watch Smallville this season?

Answers:
(1) Because Erica Durance is awesome, Lois Lane is popular, and all in all because she’s Lois Lane, hel-lo!
(2) Because Erica Durance is awesome, Lois Lane is popular, and all in all because she’s Lois Lane, hel-lo!
(3) Because Erica Durance is awesome, Lois Lane is popular, and all in all because she’s Lois Lane, hel-lo!

Will Chlois Happen? Check out my fact-o-meter!
Time= Smallville Season 1-8, Chances of Chlois happening= 0



Summary
So just to recap, I have just established and supported with verifiable sources that Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, the executive producers of Smallville, spoke about the Lois Lane character as a separate character to Chloe Sullivan since before Smallville officially aired on the WB. Moreover, in subsequent years, Alfred Gough continued mentioning the possibility of bringing in Lois Lane to the series and clarified that her connection in the series would be as Chloe’s cousin—this was 2 years before the episode “Delete” with Chloe Sullivan using her cousin’s name. So her arrival was premeditated and certainly not a light-switch moment. In addition, I have also established how Alfred Gough and Miles Millar did not have legal permission to use the Lois Lane character until season 3, even though they expressed interest in using her character since the beginning. Moreover, along with needing permission to use the character, once the Lois Lane character was brought to Smallville she had certain restrictions placed there by the Feature Film Division that had to be obeyed or the series faced possibly cancellation. These restrictions included but were not limited to: (1) Lois starring in a limited capacity, initially 4 episodes and then bumped up to 13 episodes per season, (2) Lois and Clark having no romantic connection, not even a hint of it, and (3) Lois staying away from working at the Daily Planet. With these restrictions, Lois was kept away from journalism for a while; however, when she was finally piqued by an interest for journalism, the writers made Lois’s journey parallel her future mentor, Perry White in that both started their career working for tabloid newspapers and both started/renewed their interest in journalism thanks to a strange occurrence in Smallville, both also tied to Clark Kent. Finally, I have also established that it was always the intention of AlMiles to have Lois Lane’s arc align with the Superman mythos and that she is being written the way that the ILL has been written. More over, I have also shown how Erica Durance and her portrayal of Lois Lane has been well received on many fronts.

Well, that’s it for me. I tried to do what Lois Lane would do and investigate and gather my sources and came up with the above. I think it’s pretty clear that the Chlois theory NEVER made any sense, not even in day one. The theory should have washed away when AlMiles continually made references to bringing Lois Lane into the series. And for those who do not follow the media (aka articles and interviews) the Chlois theory should have then disappeared the second that Erica Durance stepped into the scene and announced herself as being, “Lois. Lois Lane.”

The fact that it didn't is beyond me, but not beyond Chloisers who have admitted that part of the appeal of the Chlois theory is to explain what happens to Chloe after Smallville (Carbon Copy, main page). While I understand the desire to see Chloe Sullivan live on after Smallville, that is not IMO a good enough reason to continue supporting a theory that is factually wrong and that on many levels disrespects a real person, and that's Erica Durance and her work for Smallville and her portrayal of the Lois Lane character.

There is no more room to argue for the Chlois theory but then again based on facts there never has been. You can go into the theory and nitpick it apart and find a million and one connections but that will not take away the facts as spoken by the creators of the show. Chloe Sullivan is not Lois Lane, was never meant to be Lois Lane, and will never be Lois Lane.

[TheAmazingApe]

And, if we're trusting Clark in that episode, then what do you make of Clark's superleap to stop Zatanna? Because he started his leap before Chloe turned back into herself, when Clark thought that Lois was the one encouraging him to be a hero. In that moment, Clark trusted Lois beyond all reason that he was a hero.

Just chiming in to contest this. I really don't see how he only took that leap because he thought it was Lois.

Here's a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ58h...e=channel_page) and my transcript:

Chloe: Yeah, okay. Okay, Clark, you don't have to know. If you won't believe in yourself, then let me believe in you. Okay? I know that deep inside, you don't want to just be a normal guy sitting behind a desk reporting on disasters while you could be out there stopping them. Now, use the power you feel. The world needs you.

Clark looks up at the building. Superman-like music plays. Light flashes behind him and he turns.

Clark: Chloe! Wait, that's --

Chloe: Impossible? Only in your mind. Sometimes you just need a little leap of faith. Come on, Clark. You can do this. Up, up, and away.

Then he takes off his jacket and turns back to the building and leaps.

He only took the leap after Chloe (and in her own body) encouraged him to.

[Amelie]

Actually, neither Lois or Chloe made Clark take the leap. As a mild-mannered reporter he was pretty much a skeptic and it wasn't until he saw with his own eyes that the magic was true (when he saw Chlois turn into Chloe) that he believed he had been hexed. Thus the leap was never about believing in Lois/Chloe.

[Vergon6]

Actually, neither Lois or Chloe made Clark take the leap. As a mild-mannered reporter he was pretty much a skeptic and it wasn't until he saw with his own eyes that the magic was true (when he saw Chlois turn into Chloe) that he believed he had been hexed. Thus the leap was never about believing in Lois/Chloe.

I would tend to agree. Although the speech allowed Chloe to have the epiphany and revert back to her true form-the one and only Chloe Sullivan .

Those are some good points, Herod.

[batfinx]

Dreams you've had your entire life?

Yes, only a dream. That's the rub as Shakespeare would say. Chloe has a dream and expects a magical character to fulfill it for her, or a rich sugar daddy when Lionel was helping her fulfill it. Even at the Torch it stopped being about reporting and switched to Chloe being the go-to girl for plot exposition long before she left high school. The writing was already on the wall. She got fingerprint information, DMV records, substance analysis, 911 calls, video surveillance footage, she hacked into databases and all of that was while she was still in high school.

The Daily Planet merely became the Torch 2.0 and I don't recall any Chlois fans complaining when Chloe was mainly doing sidekick work at the Planet (or the Torch) instead of reporting. The reason is obvious, because as long as Clark was there, even though he wasn't a reporter and Chloe had become merely a reporter in name only, it had the verisimilitude that Chloisers wanted. They could say they had the kind of relationship Clark and Lois have at the Planet in other media even thought such a statement was blatantly false.

I, personally, feel that you don't make a female character into Cinderella within a story, if you're not going to give her THE Happy Ending.

Chloe may get a happy ending, it just won't be with Clark.

Maid in Manhattan got the Happy Ending and paid off that Cinderella symbolism within the story.

Actually most romantic comedies have a happy ending like say Working Girl or any number of chick flicks.

They made Lois one of the Evil / Wicked / Ugly Step-sisters by having her feet be TOO BIG for the slippers (which is always the case of the Step-sisters). Because of the "Bippity Boppity Boo" line of dialogue, we can be assured that the Cinderella aspect was intentional. The writers and production people had to talk about and decide on those things..

Lois put the tiara on Chloe's head and told her she loved her. She was the only person who told Chloe she loved her. Yes, Lois was an "evil/wicked/ugly step-sister" for loving her little cousin. Oh, please. And for the record, the "Bippity, Boppity, Boo" quote was directed at Clark. Wouldn't that make him Cinderella?

Knowing that Lois Lane has been compared to Cinderella in the comics as well as arguably, the most acclaimed Superman film of them all makes the Chloe = Cinderella imagery much more interesting. If it was just setting up romantic Chlark, sure, no big deal, but for them to bring it back up in the same episode episode in which Chloe = Lois? I don't see that as a coinky-dink.

Are you talking about the Lois Lane comic from 1964? Are you kidding me? Have you actually read it? As for the Superman movie, the Cinderella reference dealt solely with her love life, not her life as a reporter because she was already the top reporter at the Planet.

Chloe to Lois: If it wasn't for you, I would look more like the Bride of Frankenstein than Cinderella.

It's an interesting line because when Doomsday kidnaps Chloe and takes her to the Fortress, she does look like the Bride of Frankenstein (in the way she is carried by Doomsday "over the threshold" of the FoS in her wedding dress), even though, with the wedding dress, looking all pretty, she could have been Cinderella as well. But, she's not Cinderella if she's not with Prince Charming (a.k.a.), so it seems like the Cinderella / Happy Ending is more of an endpoint for her as it should be.

I'm guessing you never saw the Bride of Frankenstein. He kills her and himself. But being Frankenstein, he came back for many sequels. Her? Not so much

If they really wanted us to care about Lois, they would have made HER Cinderella, but, they DIDN'T.

Uh, they don't have to make Lois into Cinderella because she's already a cool fictional character named Lois Lane.

Cinderella is a character who has to work to earn her Happy Ending. She gets crapped on all the time and because of that, she becomes endearing to the audience and we want her to get the good things she deserves.

Cinderella worked hard at something she didn't want to do. She was forced to do the work by her evil step-mother. She did not work hard to get the prince. Magic took care of that. Cinderella becomes Mrs. Charming and is never heard of again

They never actually said that ED = the "one Lois Lane" they were talking about. There will only be one "Lois Lane", but at this point in the story, I think it's still up for grabs.

It's still up for grabs if you believe they hired an actress to play Lois Lane for 5 years (and more), had her in a feature called "Being Lois Lane" with other actresses who have played Lois Lane over the years, sent her to comic conventions, press junkets, etc., just to have her turn out to be a red herring. You can't possibly believe that. You have to be aware of the overwhelming support Erica's Lois Lane gets in this thread and many others and realize that she has a lot of fans. At this point she has a lot more fans than there are Chlois supporters.

Then, maybe you should rewatch S1, S2, and "Bride", and "Hex"? Heck, even in "Crimson", Chloe takes the slippers back from Lois and tells her that her [Lois'] pumpkin ride is over.

Uh, doesn't that cast Chloe as an ugly step-sister?

I'm not the one who made her feet too big for the slippers in an episode of Cinderella imagery. Take that up with the Smallville writing staff.

The problem is, you're the one putting that spin on the slipper scene. To me it was a visual gag letting us know before the camera panned up that Chloe had changed. Did you ever see the movie Big? When the kid wakes up and isn't immediately aware a change has taken place after his wish? Same deal. It even starts with a shot of his feet when he gets out of bed.

Debunking Common Chlois Myths with Factual Evidence and Verifiable Sources

Great post, Herod. To quote Shakespeare "it out-Herods Herod". That's twice I've quoted Shakespeare in one post. Who knew I was so erudite Excellent work and well thought out and researched.

Just chiming in to contest this. I really don't see how he only took that leap because he thought it was Lois.

Here's a clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ58h...e=channel_page)

I agree with Pitbull on this one. Clark was going to try no matter how impossible it seemed, because "Lois" said she believed in him. The clip just reaffirms what I felt when I watched the episode originally. At first he's reluctant until she says she believes in him and the world needs him and to use the power he feels. He nodded and turned back to the building. That truly would've been a leap of faith because faith is all he had to go on at that moment. Ironically when Chloe reappeared it diluted the notion of faith because now he had proof that magic was involved.

[Supsfan]

Even at the Torch it stopped being about reporting and switched to Chloe being the go-to girl for plot exposition long before she left high school.

For arguement sake wasn't fetching info on the FOTW Chloe main role all 3 seasons, sure they threw her a couple small storylines about her actually being a journalist here and there but for the most part the FOTW plot esposition person was what I remember her for early seasons(although many episodes it was a case if you blinked you missed her).

The writing was already on the wall. She got fingerprint information, DMV records, substance analysis, 911 calls, video surveillance footage, she hacked into databases and all of that was while she was still in high school.

The Daily Planet merely became the Torch 2.0 and I don't recall any Chlois fans complaining when Chloe was mainly doing sidekick work at the Planet (or the Torch) instead of reporting. The reason is obvious, because as long as Clark was there, even though he wasn't a reporter and Chloe had become merely a reporter in name only, it had the verisimilitude that Chloisers wanted. They could say they had the kind of relationship Clark and Lois have at the Planet in other media even thought such a statement was blatantly false.

Yeah I suggest if somebody likes watching a character fetch information for Clark while hacking and being a computer wiz on the side, they might really enjoy Jimmy on L&C:TNAoS.

[totalrecall]

Herod, if k-site had some kinda points system i would so give you a twenty outta twenty.

The post was just fabulous, and i loved how you gave references to actual interviews.

Good stuff..

Oh, and just in case someone is wondering, i never ever subscribed to the Chlois theory..Ever.

Chloe is Chloe Sullivan as played by Allison mack. Lois is Lois Lane as played by Erica Durance.

[Supsfan]

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/galleries/hollywood_drawn_to_comic_books/hollywood_drawn_to_comic_books.html#ph43

I don't see Allison Mack in Panel #44 that has a bunch of actresses who played Lois Lane, Erica Durance though is on there

http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/02/25/gal_comic_lois_lane.jpg

Here's the scoop on some of the actresses who've played Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane, the love of Superman's life: (clockwise from top l.) Kate Bosworth in 2006's 'Superman Returns', Teri Hatcher in the TV series, 'The Adventures of Lois & Clark'; Erica Durance in 'Smallville' and Margot Kidder from 1978's 'Superman'.

[savingpeoplething]

I actually happens all the time in real life and I believe several posters have provided real life examples.

I'm definitely sorry to hear that there are people in real life that has not gotten to achieve their life-long dreams. I admit that, sometimes, that does happen to people.

However, there are instances, where life-long dreams DO come true for some folks. I DO believe that there are some people who are meant to do certain things and have that placed within them at an early age...and I count myself as one of them.

As far as how that relates to Chlois? While I can agree that sometimes, people don't get to achieve life-long dreams that stem from childhood, I think, with fiction, if you present a character having this dream and who works to achieve it? More often than not, you're going to write them to finally meet that dream or that goal.

I'm actually at a loss for TV or movie examples where I've seen characters built up do something and it being something they are meant to do, and end up totally walking away from it or failing at it. The only one I can really think might apply is Pam on The Office, who wanted to be an artist and failed out of Art School (and that only happened, I think, because they knew the audience hated that Pam was separated from everyone else at Dunder-Mifflin and did what they had to in order to bring her back). I really hated that they did that with Pam, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was able to come back to it at some point.

Most of the time, it's the exact opposite. Think Liz Lemon on 30 Rock (who wanted to grow up to be like Rosemary, the Laugh-In writer she admired as a child and ended up becoming Head Writer of TGS with Tracy Jordan) or Rudy from well, "Rudy".

I just had to comment on this one because to me that scene was obvious in the fact that it was showing that Chloe’s feet weren’t big enough to fill Lois’ shoes.

If they hadn't referenced "Bippity, Boppity Boo", I might agree with you, but since they did, I totally disagree. The slippers were a reference to Cinderella.

when Chloe associates herself with Cinderella, no matter the context, you cite this as evidence that the audience is supposed to view her as Cinderella.

If we're not supposed to view Chloe as Cinderella, then why do they write it like that?

Lois Lane isn't what most would describe as a Cinderella-type.

Even though the movies and comics paint her as such?

Lois Lane works hard for what she gets and even though, most of the time, she was written to be unlucky in love or more focused on her work than her love life, she always ends up romantically involved with the most awesome guy in the universe.

I'd say that's pretty Cinderella-esque, myself.

Lois hasn't been cast in the role of the wicked step-sister. She never tried to take Chloe's life.

Brian Peterson, executive producer and writer on Smallville disagrees with you.

Chloe requests a life more like her cousin Lois Lane. “Chloe is in a very difficult time in her life,” Peterson says. “She’s just lost Jimmy [who left her in last week’s episode] and she’s looking across the room at Lois Lane, who has basically taken her life and is living this fabulous life at the Daily Planet.”

The whole idea that Chloe = Cinderella and Chlois is endgame turns this show in Chloeville and makes Clark a secondary character.

I don't think so.

I think Chlois is just part of the story. It actually says more about the growth of Clark as a character than it does anything else. It shows that he is able to see the girl that he shouldn't be with and finally, see the girl he should be with. Numan finding his True One is just as important as figuring out who Segeeth is.

Chlois just helps connect all the dots from the beginning of the series and I don't know about anyone else, but I love shows that do things like that. It's one of the reasons I love Lost.

Plus, Clark and Lois in the comics and on LnC are seen as equals. Lois is just as much part of the Superman legend as Supes, himself is. She's just as important as he is to the story. She's been around since day one in Action Comics #1.

Figuring out who the real Lois Lane is should be a big deal for Clark Kent on Smallville.

Considering how tight-lipped the PTB have been about practically everything else about this episode, I doubt Ausiello is on the level with this one. It's my belief he's been fed false information from whoever his "source" is, in order to throw people off track.

Michael Ausiello writes from Entertainment Weekly, which is owned by Time Warner. Smallville is distributed by Warner Bros. Television, which coincidentally, is also owned by Time Warner. And, just for fun, DC Comics is also a Time Warner company.

Isn't it possible that Time Warner is keeping this information within the family (what a coinky-dink that he is the ONLY source out there with the information about who will die and was the first to break the story), in order to keep it from getting out? I think so. It's kind of nice that the show learned from the Pink Script Debacle of S6's finale.

I also don't think Ausiello would give out teases and hints unless he knew the actual information. I don't think he's that stupid.

It's bad for the characters, insulting to the actresses, and deeply disturbing assassination of the character of Lois Lane.

Worse than a Lois Lane who gets hot and heavy with her editor-boss in the storage closet and fakes stories to make her name great?

Here's the thing about insulting actresses with a plot twist...

Even if you're totally unhappy with a storyline, pros go through with it. They can hate it all they want, but professionals will give it their all and do the best they can with it, so that if audiences realize the story is bad, they can still come out on top.

I'm a soap fan (mostly, Y&R and AMC) and I've noticed that recently, with the Bianca/Reese storyline on All My Children (it's the most recent example I can think of an actor not being happy, yet still being committed).

Eden Riegel didn't like what happened with the whole Zach/Reese kiss the night before the big ground-breaking (I kind of don't think it's all that ground-breaking if their marriage only lasted a day, but what can you do? Hee.) first lesbian wedding on daytime, but you know what?

Eden stayed the course and she gave some fantastic performances out of it. She is a total class act and pro (to be honest, I expect that kind of attitude out of an Emmy Award-Winning actress) because she realized that she was contracted for that storyline and even if she hated what was happening (and probably voiced her concern over it), she still did what she could to give the best performance she could. Same thing with Tamara Braun (an Emmy Award-Nominated actress), who played Reese on All My Children, who likewise, didn't appreciate the downturn of the storyline.

Having said that, if Chlois was to happen, the best thing Erica Durance can do is stay with it and do what she's asked. She can speak out later about how much she didn't like it or whatever, but the classiest thing she can do is try her best and go with it. If you want people to work with you later on, you have to act like a pro about plot twists or show exits. Nobody wants to work with a complaining prima donna who doesn't get his/her way.

Should Chlois happen, Erica Durance would have had the chance to participate in one of the greatest twists on TV and most interesting re-tellings of the Superman legend, and IMO, I think that's really cool and she should be so fortunate.

I'll bet if Lois had been in the episode, someone would have recognized her right off.

That's a great point. Why wasn't she IN that episode? Wouldn't that have been an easy way to kill the theory or to show that ED was playing the real deal?

Instead, we got a line from Garth about a name change and Chloiac saying that history was about to get a rewrite.

"Maid in Manhattan" was specifically set up as a modern-day Cinderella story. It's a popular fairy tale to emulate. Smallville, however, has never been set up as a Cinderella story. It's been set up as a Superman story.

And, how, exactly, does it relate to Chlois?

What I was trying to say was that Maid in Manhattan had Cinderella imagery and because of that, the audience knows (or should pick up on) that a happy ending is going to happen, based on it.

Smallville has done similar things with Cinderella imagery in regards to Chloe and from that, I feel like they have no other choice than to give Chloe the happy ending that is so familiar with the Cinderella story. It makes absolutely no sense to do all of that and lay it on so heavily in "Hex" and NOT go through with it.

I hate to bring up All My Children again, but this, again, is the most recent example I can think of that has done something similar.

On All My Children, the couple of Zach and Kendall have had Sleeping Beauty references thrown their way. Kendall was in a coma (total soapiness), so the show decided to paint her as Sleeping Beauty, which, by extension of that, made Zach, her husband, out to be her Prince.

Zach: Your mom is gonna have to um...get a little bit more Sleeping Beauty sleep.
(Zach then reads the story of Sleeping Beauty to their boys, Spike and Ian.)

Bianca: Go home to Spike and Ian. Give 'em a kiss. Tell 'em Sleeping Beauty got a magic heart.
Zach: Sleeping Beauty, huh?

Zach and their boys give Kendall her a homecoming gift in the form of Sleeping Beauty jewelry.

Zach: What's in the box?
Reese: Oh...it's...just a little something. It's uh...it's the Prince from Sleeping Beauty.
Zach: For my boys?
Reese: [Laughs]
Zach: [Laughs] They're gonna love that.
Reese: You know, you're still Kendall's prince.

Granted, right now, in the story, Sleeping Beauty and Prince Phillip have signed divorce papers, but I don't see that going through. Zendall is very popular among the AMC fanbase and since they are totally M.F.E.O., they will get back together in the near future. Spoilers indicate that this might happen as soon as May, just in time for Sweeps.

30 Rock did something similar in its first season when Liz and Jenna talk about who can be Cinderella when Jack invites Liz to go to his friend's big birthday party (the "ball", if you will).

Oh, and don't worry, I think Jack and Liz will end up together by the end of 30 Rock's run.

My point is that TV shows and movies do that kind of imagery all the time and that it's more often than not (I can't think of any times that it's NOT, myself) an indicator of how the story and how the relationships will pan out.

Interestingly, Lois was shown with a pair of bunny slippers in an earlier season. Does that make her Cinderella?

In that episode (I'm assuming you're referring to "Recruit"), were there references to Cinderella?

You go back and watch Devoted for example and we see how Clark will always feel about Chloe

I remember Clark saying he didn't feel that way about Chloe...YET?

Chloe as Lois would be something that would be extremely detrimental to the show. It would only do harm in the long run, IMO.

I totally disagree and I kind of think that the network is already preparing the audience for it. "The past is a lie. The present is changing. The future unknown"? How is the future of a show about Superman UNKNOWN?

I think the shakeup of Chlois could be awesome for the show. It has the potentional to get a lot of buzz surrounding the story and bring a lot of attention to the network, which has been criticized for being blah, uncreative, and lazy (in making remakes of old shows like 90210 or Melrose Place).

It'd be great for The CW to show they are willing to take chances.

In a day and age where audiences expect and WANT plot twists and unexpected things to happen, Smallville could really benefit from a Chlois reveal.

[Dobson]

Seems to me Clark already knows who is Lois Lane and who is Chloe Sullivan.

[Violet-Shadow]

Maybe Chloe is like Cinderella. But that still doesn't make her like ILL. How is she like ILL??

Also, Herod's post is great in debunking the Chlois theory and I'd love to see someone who believes the theory respond to it.

[ginevrakent]

I'm definitely sorry to hear that there are people in real life that has not gotten to achieve their life-long dreams. I admit that, sometimes, that does happen to people.

Why is it a sad thing? Sometimes people are happy in pursuits they were not part of their original dreams. That is certainly true for me. I'm sure some find it to be an unfortunate experience to end up where they didn't expect, but some actually find equal if not greater happiness in trying something new.

I'm However, there are instances, where life-long dreams DO come true for some folks. I DO believe that there are some people who are meant to do certain things and have that placed within them at an early age...and I count myself as one of them.

I'm happy that you had a calling at a young age and are now finding satifaction in whatever field you are in. I agree with you. There are countless people who fulfill their lifelong dreams even after obstacles get in their way. I just think there are an equal amount of exceptions.

I'm As far as how that relates to Chlois? While I can agree that sometimes, people don't get to achieve life-long dreams that stem from childhood, I think, with fiction, if you present a character having this dream and who works to achieve it? More often than not, you're going to write them to finally meet that dream or that goal.

I'm actually at a loss for TV or movie examples where I've seen characters built up do something and it being something they are meant to do, and end up totally walking away from it or failing at it.

Well, considering the wide variety of stories being told through various media, I'm sure there are examples to support both views. I don't agree that is uncommon for characters to walk away from and fail in achieving long-held aspirations. The following are some examples that I though of initially. Some may not fit precisely, but its just some of my initial brainstorming.

Jude Fawley in Jude the Obscure (Thomas Hardy) - Jude is a village stonemason in the southwest English region of Wessex who yearns to be a scholar at "Christminster", a city modelled on Oxford, England. In his spare time, working for his aunt's bakery, he teaches himself Greek and Latin. After an ill fated marriage to Arabelle Donn, he moves to Christminster from his village and supports himself as a mason while studying alone, hoping to be able to enter the university later. He applies, but is rejected, and by the end of the story he dies having never achieved his dream of becoming a scholar.

Giselle in Enchanted - Giselle dreams of finding her husband through "true love's kiss," and after she kisses Prince Edward she believes she is destined to marry him and live happily ever after. However, after she experiences the real world due to the evil doings of the wicked witch, Giselle realizes that Edward is not her prince, but the New York lawyer, Robert, is. She ends up living in the real world as a career woman.

Jesus' Disciples in The New Testament - Many of these men were in a particular field, whether it was as fishermen or tax collectors, when Jesus asked them to give up their trades to follow him. At the point that they switch paths, they even receive new names (e.g. Simon becomes Peter). In a later story, the man who had so vigorously persecuted Christians named Saul has an epiphany and becomes Paul--one of the greatest witnesses for Christianity.

Hobbits in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (J.R.R. Tolkien) - Notoriously timid about leaving their cozy little hobbit holes, Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry decide to leave their lives as farmers behind for an epic quest. While some return, many end up in positions of leadership and some, like Frodo and Bilbo, find that things can never really go back to the way things were.

Claire Bennet, Peter Petrelli, and Matt Parkman in Heroes - In a recent episode, Claire reveals that she once dreamed of being a doctor and even class president, but as she discovered her powers and experienced several trials she realized that fate may have made those dreams impossible to achieve. Peter studied to be a nurse, and even worked as one for a time, but he may never return to that occupation given his experiences of late. Matt Parkman has had ambitions to become a detective after years of being a police officer. He struggles with the detective exam but ultimately succeeds as a result of his newfound mindreading power. This power, however, diverts him from his purpose and he may not ever find his way back. So I guess for these characters, it is "to be continued..."

Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars - Admittedly, I have never watched a Star Wars movie in my life, but I do know that Anakin trained to be a hero, but events conspired against him that ultimately took him to the dark side.

Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight - Harvey Dent worked hard to become the indomitable D.A. of Gotham City. He even rose to a level where he was perceived by many as the last hope, the White Knight, for the city's redemption. However, hard work and dreams aside, Harvey found himself entangled in the Joker's villainous games. Destroyed by these trials, Harvey becomes a law breaking villain.

Frank and April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road - Both Frank and April dream of living a life that is special and not like the ordinary lives of their peers in the 1950s. Frank's dreams of working in anything other than the office job his father had once done and April's dreams of being an actress tranform into a dream of moving to Paris. These dreams come crashing down as Frank earns a promotion at his job and April discovers she is pregnant. Frank decides he is fine with staying, but April is determined to fulfill their plans. Seeing her pregnancy as the chief barrier to becoming free to achieve their dreams, April attempt to give herself an abortion. This ultimately ends up killing her.

Dwayne Hoover in Little Miss Sunshine - Dwayne is determined to become a pilot, but once he discovers he is color blind this dream is put in jeopardy. Dwayne decides that he will try to become a pilot anyway, but it is uncertain at the end of the film if he will ever do so or find something else to do.

Andy and Elizabeth Farmer in Funny Farm - Andy has always dreamed of completing his great novel, and decides to move to the country to complete it. Elizabeth soon finds herself inspired by the challenges of living in the odd town of Redbud and while she successfully writes and publishes a children's story, Andy fails miserably at completing his book. Ultimately, Andy realizes that writing a novel isn't for him. Instead, he ends the movie as the sports reporter for the local paper and Elizabeth continues to succeed as a children's book author.

If we're not supposed to view Chloe as Cinderella, then why do they write it like that?

I can see shades of Cinderella in Chloe's story, but if Chloe is shown to find happiness in her new calling as Watchtower as per the reversal of the spell and Chloe's own statements in Hex, then I think it's okay to assume that Chloe's happy ending now doesn't have to include writing for the Daily Planet. I mean, if the bluetooth earpiece fits...

Even though the movies and comics paint her as such?

These are the same movies and comics that have a host of identifiable traits of ILL on display which Chloe doesn't have, imho.

Lois Lane works hard for what she gets and even though, most of the time, she was written to be unlucky in love or more focused on her work than her love life, she always ends up romantically involved with the most awesome guy in the universe.

I realize you're describing how ILL can be considered a Ciderella-type character, but I'm not sure it's impossible to see Lois on SV through this lens as well.

Lois on Smallville has worked hard as well. Jonathan and Martha both praised Lois for her skill and work ethic when she was working at the Talon all the way up to being a Chief of Staff. We even hear of Lois staying up nights to write a story in Fracture that would never see print, just because she believed in not letting Lex Luthor's antics in Detroit go unrecorded. She's since published hundreds of articles, and making great headway as a reporter at the DP after having pulled double duty as a CoS and Inquisitor reporter. Beyond that, she had an arduous childhood of raising her sister in an an environment that lacked nurturing from a mother who was dead and a father who was either absent or emotionally distant.

Lois also balances her work and her love life. While working as CoS and Inquisitor reporter, Lois is in her first serious romance with Oliver Queen. It is during her relationship with him that she publishes her first major article introducing the Green Arrow to the world. In S7, Lois is handing in loads of articles and pitching other stories to Grant Gabriel despite her unfortunate inter-office romance with him. This year, Lois has been said to have published hundreds of stories and hasn't really had much of a love life to speak of to interfere with that. If anything, we find that romance, or the lack thereof, focuses her as she "buries her heartache in her work."

We'll see if Lois gets to be with the most awesome guy in the universe. It seems as if there have been enough avils to suggest this will be so.

I'd say that's pretty Cinderella-esque, myself.

That's really cool. I'm not sure what kind of fairy tale character I would compare myself to. Perhaps Belle or Ariel.

Brian Peterson, executive producer and writer on Smallville disagrees with you.

Chloe requests a life more like her cousin Lois Lane. “Chloe is in a very difficult time in her life,” Peterson says. “She’s just lost Jimmy [who left her in last week’s episode] and she’s looking across the room at Lois Lane, who has basically taken her life and is living this fabulous life at the Daily Planet.”

While BP, some audience members, and Chloe herself at her party may perceive this to be true on some level, I and others may have a different perspective; especially in view of the fact that Lois was not shown to actively be taking anything from Chloe or to be depriving her of anything that Chloe couldn't herself have if she wanted it. According to the end of Hex, Chloe doesn't want what Lois has and sees the life Lois now leads as not her own anymore.

I think Chlois is just part of the story. It actually says more about the growth of Clark as a character than it does anything else. It shows that he is able to see the girl that he shouldn't be with and finally, see the girl he should be with. Numan finding his True One is just as important as figuring out who Segeeth is.

I respect your point of view, but I'm not sure how Clark realizing that Lois is this girl doesn't serve a similar function.

Chlois just helps connect all the dots from the beginning of the series and I don't know about anyone else, but I love shows that do things like that. It's one of the reasons I love Lost.

I like shows that connect the dots too, I just don't think that Chlois has ever been the planned endpoint, so I don't think the dots are leading us there. People keep recommending Lost to me, and I still haven't seen it. If you like it, perhaps I'll consider checking it out again .

Plus, Clark and Lois in the comics and on LnC are seen as equals. Lois is just as much part of the Superman legend as Supes, himself is. She's just as important as he is to the story. She's been around since day one in Action Comics #1.

I'm not sure about this. I think on LnC this was more apparent, but I've heard from comics experts that Lois Lane hardly features in some of the comic books and for years, due to societal values, their relationship was not of complete equals with Clark being higher up on the DP totem pole and Lois frequently making a fool of herself in search of scoops. So, I think this point is up for interpretation. Besides, seeing Lois and Clark on Smallville working together as a "good team" (Committed) and being able to go toe to toe in many respects makes them candidates for fitting this description just as much, if not more than Chloe and Clark, imo. Furthermore, traditionally Lois and Clark are rivals more than equals (to be explored more later in this post).

Figuring out who the real Lois Lane is should be a big deal for Clark Kent on Smallville.

Why? It's not a part of the mythos for Lois Lane's identity to be a mystery. I'm just not sure that anything can be described as something that "should" happen. It might be intriguing to see something of this nature, but it's not a must. YMMV.

Worse than a Lois Lane who gets hot and heavy with her editor-boss in the storage closet and fakes stories to make her name great?

Yeah, there are some things that are worse than that. Like breaking the law to hack into computers, murder, etc. By the way, what fake stories? In any case, I'm pretty sure ILL isn't always on her best behavior when it comes to getting stories:

Lois Lane is also referred to as “Clark Kent’s rival reporter at the Daily Planet” (Act No. 176, Jan 1953: “Muscles for Money”). Indeed, the rivalry between these “two famed reporters” (Act No. 58, Mar 1943: “The Face of Adonis!”) is a keen one. Lois, in particular, is fiercely, sometimes unscrupulously, competitive, resorting to such tactics as intercepting Kent’s telephone messages (S No. 14, Jan/Feb 1942; and others), sending him off on wild-goose chases (Act No. 5, Oct 1938; and others), and even seducing him into letting her accompany him on an interview and then slipping knockout drops into his drink so that she can cover the story alone(Act No.6, Nov 1938).

Indeed, Lois Lane is renowned “throughout the world” for her “courage and ingenuity in getting scoops” (S No. 181/1, Nov 1965:”The Super-Scoops of Morna Vine!”; “The Secret of the New Supergirl”), and her “mania for scoops” or “scoop craziness”, has tended to lead her to do almost anything in pursuit of a hot story.

Here's the thing about insulting actresses with a plot twist...

Having said that, if Chlois was to happen, the best thing Erica Durance can do is stay with it and do what she's asked. She can speak out later about how much she didn't like it or whatever, but the classiest thing she can do is try her best and go with it. If you want people to work with you later on, you have to act like a pro about plot twists or show exits. Nobody wants to work with a complaining prima donna who doesn't get his/her way.

Should Chlois happen, Erica Durance would have had the chance to participate in one of the greatest twists on TV and most interesting re-tellings of the Superman legend, and IMO, I think that's really cool and she should be so fortunate.

I don't presume to know how Erica would feel or react to such a storyline as Chlois, but I don't really think it's respectful to her and everything she has invested in the character. Erica won the role over loads of actresses, and comic writer Jeph Loeb even lobbied for her to get the part. Erica was described by TPTB as having studied all of the previous versions of Lois Lane (Erica was even a comic fan as a child) and the performance of Katherine Hepburn In Bringing up Baby in preparation for the role.

Many working on the show, and even someone in a recent Smallville magazine, have described her Lois as one of the best. Former Lois Lanes, Noel Neill and Margot Kidder have praised her take on the character. A DVD featurette was even made to honor her place among the other Loises. So all of this hard work, all of the restrictions on her contract, and all of the praise would be made utterly meaningless.

I have no doubt that Erica Durance would work her butt off for the show no matter what storyline they gave her (she hated the Grois storyline), because that's just the amazing professional that she is. It's just on a human empathic level, it would be hurtful and wrong to undermine all of her passion and hard work with a Chlois twist. In fact, I think it does the same to Allison Mack who doesn't seem to like the Chlois theory and has worked so hard and has been so proud of the unique character she has created for the show.

That's a great point. Why wasn't she IN that episode? Wouldn't that have been an easy way to kill the theory or to show that ED was playing the real deal?

Instead, we got a line from Garth about a name change and Chloiac saying that history was about to get a rewrite.

I think all of this is a bit nebulous. Who knows for sure what any of that meant? Who knows if Rokk will meet Lois in Doomsday? They didn't meet Jimmy either, so is he not the real Jimmy? The point is they didn't recognize Chloe when they would have definitely been able to recognize Lois Lane.

Smallville has done similar things with Cinderella imagery in regards to Chloe and from that, I feel like they have no other choice than to give Chloe the happy ending that is so familiar with the Cinderella story.

Maybe Chloe's happy ending is that she gets to work as the ultimate sidekick, getting to do awesome amounts of research and supporting a league of heroes. Her life would become the Weird and Unexplained that she was always fascinated by. I don't see how Lois dying makes it a happy ending either.

My point is that TV shows and movies do that kind of imagery all the time and that it's more often than not (I can't think of any times that it's NOT, myself) an indicator of how the story and how the relationships will pan out.

I think all of your analogies to other shows are interesting, but I think the best material to use to see Chlois in context would be the source material that is Superman.

I totally disagree and I kind of think that the network is already preparing the audience for it. "The past is a lie. The present is changing. The future unknown"? How is the future of a show about Superman UNKNOWN?

Again, while this is certainly a valid perspective to have, I don't know if your interpretation is the only one possible. The past that was a lie was likely the whole Veritas/Eternal/Traveler story rewrite, and obviously the present is always changing as time inevitably marches forward, and the future is unknown to the characters and to us as the audience. I don't know who's dying, and I don't know Chloe's place in history. It is unknown, as is the precise way Clark will reach his ultimate destiny. The journey isn't over.

I think the shakeup of Chlois could be awesome for the show. It has the potentional to get a lot of buzz surrounding the story and bring a lot of attention to the network, which has been criticized for being blah, uncreative, and lazy (in making remakes of old shows like 90210 or Melrose Place).

That could happen. It certainly would be controversial. I'm not sure it would be all good buzz, though. It would be a tremendous risk for the showrunners, and I'm not even sure it's legally possible considering the current lawsuits with Siegel and Shuster.

It'd be great for The CW to show they are willing to take chances.

I'm not sure they are. They seem to like to go with what works; hence the Gossip Girl prequel and the Melrose Place and 90210 spin offs.

In a day and age where audiences expect and WANT plot twists and unexpected things to happen, Smallville could really benefit from a Chlois reveal.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I know a lot of people in this modern audience were pretty upset with what was done to Feramir in LotR's, how Susan kissed Caspian in Prince Caspian, and how Hermione got Ron's line about "if you want to kill Harry, you'll have to kill us too" in PoA. People do like twists, I'll give you that, but as Novek said, they need to be within reason. I think Chlois goes too far, but as always, YMMV.

[marcella]

Herod, you did a great post