I think "big reveal" is speculation because I don't recall any official reports suggesting they had a "big reveal" planned for Chloe. But I would hazard that TPTB at SV having influenced the decision to not have the previously reported Chloe issue go forward is fairly well supported by the events this past year. I don't think there is any evidence that they NEVER intend to have Chloe in the comic books, just that this particular issue was dropped.

What we do know:
1) Chloe was supposed to be a younger cousin in the comic books who looked like Chloe and acted like high school Chloe in terms of journalism but there was no Chlark backstory. That was an announced plan (with an issue #) that was dropped without specifying a reason.
2) Craig has said he got the impression the writers think Chloe is done with the Daily Planet. Specifically,


A reasonable fact-based speculation (IMO):
TPTB for SV said "not yet" for Chloe because they still want some mystery for her future. It doesn't have to be a big reveal but some uncertainty seems warranted as she's the only major character left without a pre-defined future. For example, although we got the Lionel death spoiler pretty early in 2007, there were at least a few weeks of "maybe Chloe dies for real" speculation prior to Descent. By putting a version of her in the comic books, at a minimum, it says Chloe exists as a cub reporter in the time of Lois & Clark (albeit really really differently) at the Daily Planet. Although the events of Descent did not kill her off, they did take her out of the Daily Planet. By Craig's feedback about the writers and Chloe's firing, it would appear that the writer's think she's done with the Daily Planet. That's a mismatch with starting a comic book-Chloe character who is both alive and at the Daily Planet. There may have been some other reason for not going forward with the Chloe-in-the-comic book path at this time but "killing the SV suspense" seems pretty logical to me.

I guess it fits well with the title of the thread. :p

If it is speculation then it should not be treated as fact. It is not a fact that a "big reveal" for Chloe would keep the comics people from using the character.

The only "official" word that I know of is what Chi Latte pointed out - "they didn't know what to do with her and the guy who was hugely championing her enterence to the comics left?" Kurt Busiek did leave Superman, but also, it sounded like Chloe just didn't fit into the story planned for Superman #674 after all.

This would be my speculation as well. It makes sense they would want to cross market this in various media, and the strike may have thrown a wrench in the gears.

This interview (assuming it's legit) makes it pretty clear it wasn't Busiek's choice to pull Chloe and it doesn't seem to be a matter of her not fitting into the plot either. Busiek doesn't provide a reason the story was yanked. He may not even know.

Still, if the SV people don't want Chloe in the comics until after of some sort of big reveal it seems they could have easily put non-disclosure agreements into place with a couple top people at DC years ago. It would have prevented a debacle like that from ever happening.

Thanks for the interview jwm... an interesting read. See, my interpretation of a last minute "spike" seems more like external influence vs the "we didn't know what to do". I don't recall any official "we didn't know what to do" statement. The Christmas timing, however, does have me curious. SV writers weren't suppose to be writing. So... where in what process did someone "spike" the story?

That was a very interesting interview. Here is the pertinent paragraph.

And the Chloe Sullivan story was an exercise in frustration -- we worked for two years to get permission to bring her in, and I had the whole story outlined, and was just about to write the actual plot, when I found out -- at quarter to five New York time on the Friday before Christmas -- that the story was being spiked. And Renato needed plot by Monday, and there'd be no one in the office to talk to to figure out what to do for the lead-up to a double-sized anniversary issue that suddenly had no content.

It doesn't say who canceled it, but it does sound like the decision came down from on high. Of course that doesn't mean that Chloe is going to have a "big reveal" but I like the spec.



I have a feeling Oliver will waste a lot of time "discovering" things about his past and the DP won't get liberated until the half way point.

You know me too. This people love to stall too much to just had it free so soon. Besides Tess needs to meet some people before leaving it to make way for her arc.

I'm not going to go find it again, because I know I posted a ton of links in the Chloe thread when it happened, but Busiek has said on message boards that he does not know why the story was pulled.

I suppose it could have been something as simple as the new writer not wanting to use Chloe, but if that were the case, I do not know why that would be the sort of thing that wouldn't have at least been disclosed to Busiek, and Busiek has always been straight forward with readers, so I really do not think he would have lied about not knowing.

EDIT: For what it's worth, there seem to be a lot of mysterious and unexplained things happening behind the scenes at DC in the past several months, not to mention a lot of really awful continuity. Maybe the plans to introduce Chloe will resurface, like the disappearing, reappearing Batwoman comic that should happen any time now...maybe.

What about the confusing continuity with the New Gods? Eek. You're right; DC is a mess right now. Though, I guess it beats past-versions of the dead Captain America showing up in three different books a month.

The only word I've ever gotten personally from DC re: Chloe was just "it's not happening" re: #674 back in the day. Never asked why or was told why. I'm still sticking on the side of it having something to do with likeness.

That's still very interesting regarding the last-minute bit; and yes, no one was writing around Christmas which makes me think that perhaps they didn't get ALL of the clearances to use Chloe after all. Maybe that's one mystery that will be solved someday.

No it doesn't, because they are all different stories that do not contradict eachother. Plus, any and all Caps are way better than any New God, especially Invaders Cap, who is still as Jack Kirby intended him to be.


I had thought that likeness wasn't even going to be an issue. Superman editor, Matt Idelson, talked about it in an interview, where he said that comics Chloe was going to look like Chloe, but not like Allison Mack. I also don't understand why that would be something they would be so secretive about. The Buffy editor at Dark Horse has been pretty open about the fact that Sarah Michelle Gellar's reps are the ones with ultimate approval rights over who gets to draw the comic. It's even causing delays on Jeph Loeb's upcoming story arc. And I can't imagine that there would be a problem with Renato Guedes anyway, since he has already drawn Chloe for the Smallville comic.

I'm not sure what thread to put this in, but this one seemed like the best bet. From an article on zap2it, in an article mostly ranting about a new character, they call for "major surgery" on Smallville:



So after seven years of only following Superman canon very loosely, Smallville should change its whole internal canon around to "get more in line with regular continuity"? Why? The movies are different from the comics, the different eras of comics are different, and "Lois and Clark" was different from other Superman canon, too. What's wrong with being different, exactly?

And how exactly would they line up with canon, anyway? Can they change the fact that Clark's already met Brainiac and Zod and Mxy and Bizarro and Perry White and most of the Justice League, and been to the Phantom Zone, and created his Fortress, and that Lois (whoever she may be) knew him in high school? Can they change the fact that Jimmy Olsen is his age, and that Jimmy has more seniority at the Planet than Clark does?

And what is the point of calling for Clark to "wear his damn glasses already" if in the very next sentence you admit that it just doesn't matter, in this particular version of the story? I happen to think TW looks really hot in glasses, so I wouldn't be averse to seeing him wear them. But since he's been hanging out regularly at the Daily Planet for the past three years, I honestly don't see how they're going to give him a "secret identity," and I don't think the showrunners know, either, based on things they've said.

Anyway... if Smallville wanted to line up with "regular continuity" (whatever that is), the time to start was a long, long time ago. At this point, it simply can't be done, IMHO. The last thing I want to see is Smallville do a hatchet job on its own internal canon to try to match up with the comics or movies, personally. I don't want to see the writers do "major surgery" on the show, except to fix the characters so that they're more compelling and in-character, and to fix the writing so it isn't so darn inconsistent. The show definitely has its problems, but a failure to line up with canon is not, IMHO, one of them.

Are those readers comments though?



Talk about wasting fan's time if that happens at this stage.

It amuses me no end that one of the comments is to "stop being cool and different". Righty oh, when did being cool and different become a bad thing, may I ask? Don't get me wrong, the show's execution sucks usually, but I mean it is a cool premise.

It's the same with the flying and the glasses - are those going to make him any more Superman than he already is when he saves the day, defeats Zod and FOTWs etc? I mean, I view ending his relationship with Lana as the marker by which he is ready to move on, not flying, and sure as hell not putting on glasses.

It's fine to use reader comments as a launching pad for discussion here, but please don't discuss the readers themselves. It falls under the general area of "talking about the boards on the boards."

Thanks.

Nope... those were the author's comments. The author though is pretty much just a random fan of science fiction with the ability to post so it's all pretty much the same thing. The author of that particular piece has no more say in the direction the show takes than I do.

Indeed, I suspect that rather than Smallville coming into line with the comics, the comics will be coming into line with Smallville more and more in the future. With media tie-ins like Buffy season eight soundly beating out a lot of the older comics the trend at DC seems to be to adapt their continuities to the other media to try and get readers. Batman's backstory was retconned to match Batman Begins around the time of Infinite Crisis and Superman/Batman brought in the meteor shower/freaks and they tried to bring in Chloe (who likely WILL be worked into the comics in whatever capacity she ends up on Smallville once the series ends and they no longer have someone over their heads spiking the story).

Big reveal in the sense I intended it in my post simply meant that her final fate on the show is one of the few mysteries left in the series... thus whatever her fate is will be a big reveal to the audience since we already know what happens with Clark and Lex and Lana. Despite what some might think, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Chlois.

There were other remarks made by Dan Didio (head of DC comics) that made it clear he'd had his neck stepped on by someone higher up the food chain (which means AlMiles just because no one else at Time Warner would care). The fact that it was able to be spiked virtually at the deadline point (quarter to five on a Friday with a Monday deadline) and after the issue announcing Chloe's appearance in the next issue had already gone to press also shows just who really has the power in the DC Comics/Smallville relationship... and it's not DC Comics. At. All.

I know what I said above, but, that said...

There IS a very simple solution to this and AM IS signed for 22 episodes while Ausiello just reconfirmed what Craig has said; that ED is only signed for her usual deal. He added that there may be a slight chance that they could possibly use her in perhaps (wow, the only time I ever use that manly conditional clauses is when I'm trying to softsell a NO) one or two more episodes, but that adding any more episodes to ED's schedule would be extremely "complicated."

Knowing what I know of television production and having been reading up on the methods of storytelling from the guy who taught AlMiles (and at least one of PS3... I don't have educational backgrounds on the other three) how to write stories (i.e. Robert McKee) I think that bit of casting news alone says a lot about where next season will be heading (for those who might say that McKee didn't actually influence them all that much, let me pre-empt you with a single word... Triangles. McKee pushed triangles in dramatic storytelling a LOT... he praises them for the degree of complexity they can add to an otherwise simple/boring story. He even describes a four person interaction scheme as a double triangle of interactions).

Going off the story presented on screen, I'd say it's very safe to say that the only thing Chloe was done with, was being under Lex Luthor (sorry Chlex fans) and if they're using even an ounce of their screenwriting education, her unjust ousting by Lex was just a season finale cliffhanger (that got dragged out by more episodes) that will be resolved next season. Again, this does not necessarily mean Chlois. It just means that the spine of Chloe's story from the very beginning has revolved around her pursuit of journalism and you don't resolve that story, one way or the other, until the end of the story... which is still 22 episodes away.

The only way that Chloe being done with journalism works from a storytelling standpoint is if its a part of her finally realizing some subconscious desire that has also been present since the beginning of the story and is in conflict with her conscious desire. There hasn't been any such conflict for Chloe... the only real conflict in that area resolved way back in season four when she decides to keep Clark's secret and not use it for her own personal gain. Since then the only forces of antogonism in her story have been entirely external ones she's struggled against while her internal goals have remained fixed. Even Jimmy is presented more as an obstacle to her ambitions than as alternative. The fact that came with there still being 22 episodes to go pretty much dooms Chimmy as surely as we've known by the narrative that Clana is ultimately doomed. It simply runs against everything that's taught in screenwriting courses for her to just decide one day to give up on her life's dream and go make babies with Jimmy Olsen.

Nois, by contrast, has been consistently used as a bit player and you can see it in the amount of interaction she has with the protagonist. McKee describes it as a solar system. Clark, the main protagonist, is like a star, with his supporting characters orbiting him like planets and the bulk of his interactions are indeed with Lex, Lana, and Chloe throughout the season. Meanwhile the bit players are like moons that orbit various members of the supporting cast and when you look at screen interactions, Nois, like Jimmy, clearly orbits Chloe, with occassional bumps into Lex and Clark and Lana.

Bit players don't get major onscreen plot arcs and never get the happy ending over a supporting character. In order for drama to work only another supporting characters or the protagonist outdoes another supporting character. There's just no way, by the way she's been consistently written, that the writers intend for Nois to be anything other than a throwaway role in the larger drama of Chloe Sullivan (just as Chloe is part of the larger drama of Clark Kent).

So while my spec about things like Chloe getting back into journalism and Nois not being all that relevant to the story next year (like that's something wild, crazy, and new... she's never been relavent) IS indeed spec, it is spec that is based upon an understanding of what the series has presented, knowledge that in terms of building a story the amount of episodes you have to work with makes a huge difference (hard to build momentum when the character is absent every other episode), and some insight into the methods of screenwriting that the people involved in coming up with the story were taught.

To sum up my conclusions based on the above factors... Chloe will get back into journalism, Chimmy will end badly (he proposed too soon), and Nois will again be relegated to an irrelevant relationship for the bulk of her episodes before ending badly herself.

First word to all that, Chris. :D You did your homework and you did it well. I hope you don't mind if I ever need to quote you on certain place we both know ;)



You know all this Buffy tie in worries me on a way. What if they decided to let S8 on a cliffhanger and continue it on a comic? That will be a disaster! and I think all fandom will hate it with the fire of thousand suns but greed knows not loyalty. So tell me I'm just paranoic or do you (or anyone for that matter) think there is a chance they actually could try that?

From your mouth....

I personally don't believe it's accurate to blame the strike for the S7 mess completely, but having gotten some mileage from the season, I do think that Chloe's firing was one major plot point that definitely suffered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the firing supposed to be Chloe's cliffhanger in the original "Veritas" when it was thought that this would be the finale? If so, and they had a plan to tackle her redemption in S8, then it makes sense that after the re-cut "Veritas," Chloe was stalled and the entire issue of her firing was dropped as if it hadn't happened. I suppose the writers felt that with Lana in a coma and all the crap with Lex sniffing out Clark's scent (dirty!), it made sense that Chloe's firing would be backburner even to the character. I'm hoping that this is why the matter was handled so strangely, why "Sleeper" was thrown in so randomly (and awfully) in an effort to establish the trouble with government hacking, and explains how being terminated from employment at her dream job and probably blacklisted from the field considering who did the firing didn't make a HUGE fucking splash for Chloe, whose place of employment is a character in and of itself. So...hopefully, in S8 we'll get the payoff that I think is really necessary for Chloe.

If that's NOT the plan, well...I can live with Chloe as Watchtower if it's done well. It's not my first choice, but it's still better than a season of Chloe stuck in the BALLS doing research for Clark and handling Lana's beard of a foundation.

Chris, you had some really good points in your post, and I agree -- the comics are likely to mine SV as backstory rather than ignore it. I do see some of the trends from their mentor in the writers but I'm not sure they were A+ students. There are too many gross errors in the writing to suggest that their plan hangs together as neatly as speculated. I would also say:



I can't quite buy into your conclusion as probable. I think Chloe is just as likely to move into a healer role than back to journalism. I also think Petersongate (the SciFi interview) was enough of a "tell" that Lois is not considered a "bit player" for S8. Although I agree that in S6 & S7, she slipped further into that "bit player" role, I think that their plan to "focus on Lois and Clark" means that they at least intend for her to be one of the planets orbiting Clark in S8. With AM & JH's return, the previously stated focus seems more "unfocused" to me at this time. Still, I think it's just as likely that Lois becomes a "planet" in your solar system analogy rather than continuing to be a moon around Chloe. Nature (and many TV writers) abhor a vacuum. I think the Lois & Clark talk was to bolster the fan support in the light of KK's intention of only doing a few episodes in S8. With Lana's return, I could see Lois staying as a moon until KK is completely finished and then moving up to "planet" to fill in a perceived vacuum in the Clark Kent triangle. With JH we actually get the two triangle theory going. Jimmy ... I just don't know. They could throw in happy Chimmy for a while but that seem like an improbable endstate to me as well.

One further consideration re: Chloe would involve likeness rights. If Chloe were to become a permanent part of the comic book mythology, DC Comics would have to pay Allison Mack and/or AlMiles a royalty for a huge amount of time. I don't know what it is, but I remember a similar reason explaining why Giselle (from "Enchanted") was not a part of Disney's "Princesses" toy line, because they would have to pay Amy Adams for that likeness in other media.

Despite Chloe's popularity on TV, that might just be too much of a hassle and expense for the DC Powers That Be... especially if they already have a character that fulfills most of Chloe's functions in the comic books (Lois).

If Chloe had first appeared in the comic, BEFORE the first episode of Smallville aired, it would be a different story, as the character would have been designed before Allison Mack ever played her, and the creators would not be Al and Miles.

The Smallville comic book series may be an exception that was allowed because it was a licensed tie-in to the TV series.

I'm not sure about all of the legalities but it would be a fascinating story to explore.

It's a tell, but what it's telling is debatable in my opinion.


Is that the sort of issue to throw a last minute wrench in the works? Maybe. It seems more likely to be the sort of thing to come up when first discussing an idea, to me. However, we know the weird timing of Lois and Clark screwed with DC's plans. It seems believable that a change in what was going to hit out screens might come down suddenly. It seems plausible to me that they may have realized the strike was really going to go long and they figured they weren't going to have time to get the characters where they needed them to do a cross promotion.


If I ran DC Comics (which nobody is foolish enough to allow), I would participate in cross promotion of Chlois figuring attention for the Superman story, was good for business. Again, TV viewers can make a huge imact on sales. But that doesn't mean I would include Chloe long term. After all, Lois is already there. It would be a short term addition. Then she might figure as an ocasional AU Lois varient camo, in years to come. But that's just how I would do it.


The last few episodes have filler written all over them in more ways than just the handling of Chloe. I expect the reporter arc, and maybe winning back the Planet arc to be too big to fit in a few tacked on episodes.

I agree.

I think Petersongate might be telling something different and is strange to think that they were willing to do a Lois and Clark show with "Lois" only appearing half of the time. Last time I watched some reruns Lois appeared in ALL the episodes ;)

That's pretty much my read of it, and my take on what the writer's meant when they said that Chloe was done with journalism for season seven. They had an endpoint they wanted for the season (Chloe fired from the DP by Lex Luthor) that, when they had to stretch the season out by 5 more episodes really only worked in the immediate aftermath of Lionel's death (any later and she'd have had time to hide the key so Lex would never find it) so they were stuck with fired Chloe for the rest of the season. Just like they were stuck on Lana-obsessed Clark (in the original plan as I understand it she would have woken up in the premiere).


Most of those errors can actually be traced to the vageries of television production (actor availability and such) and network fiats. No ongoing television series spanning scores of hours is ever going to be as clean and cohesive as a movie spanning two. We know Jason Teague's arc was rushed ahead because JA got the lead role on Supernatural. We know the movie division put the kibosh on Adam Knight secretly being Bruce Wayne. We know Ancier pushed them to add Lois Lane to the story, and that Dawn pushed them to add Supergirl (and I believe Ollie as well).

There's enough there in the show though to show that they do have at least a fundamental understanding of storytelling. I'm not saying it's a masterpiece by any means, but even someone who didn't take many notes would see the huge bullet-point in their textbook about how not making a character struggle for anything (not to mention handing them things unearned on a silver platter) is a sure-fire way to create audience dissatisfaction with a character.

There was an entire chapter on how to NOT rely on coincidence to turn a story for a character because it just ticks the audience off and yet. how many times has Nois "just happened" to have some coincidence that turns her story around? Her entire character arc is one giant antiplot, the thing the McKee said was guarenteed to not be financially successful because antiplot just doesn't have a large core audience. It's too pointed for it to be an accident because Clark, Lex, Chloe, Lana, and even Jimmy and other supporting characters do NOT follow an antiplot development (Lana arcs in some ways are more of a minimalist plot, but even they are mostly classical plot construction).



I don't consider it a "tell" at all. The article was pulled for a reason. There was some specific error in it and frankly, leaking the general thought that they'd try and do something like LnC, is not the sort of thing that get an interview pulled. My guess is that it was that the author for that story incorrectly presumed that an LnC-like feel meant that ED and TW would be sharing a lot of screentime when that was not actually said at all.

Indeed, at the time of the interview there were no plans in place to increase ED's episode count (and there still aren't). LnC doesn't work when half the team is absent from half the episodes and there's only one other character scheduled to be in all the episodes. Funnily enough, she also happens to have a thing for reporting and regularly teams up with Clark to boot.

Chlark have, at times, been favorably compared to LnC's duo. There's a difference between creating a LnC-like feel and specifically using ED and TW in that capacity.

Further, if Petersongate was a "tell" then sides most certainly were as well when it comes to their thinking on Nois... and that's that they're pretty much going to do with her what they have the past two years... throw her off into a random love relationship that ends badly for the front half of the season and not really have her doing anything related to journalism for the bulk of her time.

Bottom line... we KNOW there was some kind of mistake in the Peterson interview related to the LnC comments (and I outlined my suspicions on that above) and we likewise know that Blois (Bloom/Nois) was on their minds for next season at the time the sides came out.

That's why I don't put stock in Petersongate revealing some super-secret plan to push Nois to the forefront.



The writers at DC gave an interview on how that wouldn't be the case. All they have to do is draw her in a way such that she does not resemble AM while still having generally Chloe-like features. The simplest solution would be to simply draw her with the same facial features as the artist is using for Lois only with a different hairstyle and eye color. That completely removes any chance of their being any likeness issues.

From everything we've been told by DC Comics, likeness issues were NOT a factor in the story being spiked and suggesting that it is would be pure speculation.

Even without likeness issues as a factor (which IS purely speculation on my part)... there is still the possible matter of royalties to Al and Miles for the use of the character. Plus, again, why incorporate the character when they already have a character who fulfills most of the same purpose in the current comics (Lois)? Even their "new" plan seemed much like comics' Lucy Lane.

So many ways of talking around the issue. Why so much talk about how she fills a role already filled by Clark's past and present love interest. It's a way of hinting and firting around the real issue, and so build to it.

Chlois = Buzz. Attention = sales.

If they have to pay royalites, it's a cost of doing business. You spend money to make money. They are going to estimate the potential upside of the investment in terms of increased sales and do it if they think it makes them money.

Even if it's just Chloe = sales, she's a very popular character. But I think Chlois = lots more public attention.

They said they were going to do it. The sudden end implies a timing issue to me. SV wasn't going to be ready for the tie in, I think. Though it could be a reaction to the unpopularity of the idea with Chloe fans, who made it clear they wanted SV Chloe, Clark's partner.

The exact words of the SciFi editor:



Emphasis added. But the revised article pulled everything about Lois & Clark, not just the reporter's reference to the old L&C show. Peterson did tell the reporter the emphasis was Lois and Clark, he DIDN'T refer to the L&C show. The reporter didn't make up the emphasis bit at all. Which is why the only suspicious thing to me is not that he made the comment but that they moved to squash it after it was published.

At the point of the interview only TW, ED & AA were signed. They were still negotiating w/ MR & AM. So much has changed since that time, I don't think you can say they never intended to adjust ED's time. It doesn't appear (at this time) that they've made a change to her contract but I could still see them keeping ED kind of light for the start and beefing up more emphasis in the second half -- without expanding her contract.

That doesn't really make much sense either since 1) they would have known about the royalty payments when they bought the character, and 2) they've been paying royalties to creators for years now.

As a reader of the comics for almost 20 years now, I do not agree. Lois Lane in the comics is Lois Lane... "Chlois" adds extra and unnecessary complications to the picture.

I guess it's different for everybody. I wouldn't have thought about picking up a comic before the Buffy one, but I did, and I get the SPN one too.

Chlois would definitely make me pick up a Superman comic; the closer to the show it is, the better in that regard. Otherwise I wouldn't bother. I mean, the audience up the comic because of Chlois in the show is a good thing, I think.

Bringing in Chloe in the first place was an attempt to get the show's audience in on the comics after all. Chlois would be the same thing, while still keeping ILL.

Sort of like how killing Superman and replacing him with a series of imposters might? I believe that came about because DC was told to put Supes wedding on hold by a TV Show, isn't that correct?


It already did make me pick up comics. I was always a Marvel/Spidey girl, and my heart belongs to Robert Kirkman and Rumiko Takahashi, but SV hooked me into buying All Star Superman. Chlois is definately one of the things that makes SV worthwile.

That went over really well didn't it?

The question is: Would those complications make you stop buying Superman comics?

You know what the weird thing is, none of the superhero movies recently would make me pick up a comic. But Buffy, Angel, SPN did and so will Chlois in the end. It's pretty cool that so many shows are getting in on having their own comics and tieing into the shows that preceded them. I just think DC would be idiotic not to follow suit. Those sorts of things are taking off, with an "official" comic like superman following, that can only help sales, I think.

BTW, you think anyone would ever do a death of superman movie? I think the show is heading that way with Doomie eventually, but I figure, it's better than watching Kate Bosworth as ILL. Though the downside is 4 versions of Brandon Routh.

Oh, geez. If Doomtender kills Clark and then Chloe dies (for good) resurrecting him I think I'll vomit.

My Superman experience will begin and end with Smallville. Even with me enjoying Smallville, I haven't bother to pick up any Superman comics. If the show were to do Chlois and than DC would incorporate that into the comics, that might actually get me to start reading them.

Nope, three versions and Shaq

The only thing is... why would they do Chlois in the comics if they're not doing it on the show? (That's spec, not a spoiler... though Al Gough has said to me since stepping down that Chlois was NEVER the end point).

Lois Lane works just fine as she is in comic book continuity... don't see any need to change her.

And AlMiles have said that Clana was like beating a dead horse, and yet, 7 years later (going into 8), they're still beating it.

Al would have no reason to lie about his Chlois plans (or not)... he's not involved with the show anymore, so he has no "secret" to protect.

They wouldn't. I would expect it to be a tie in cross promotional thing.


Perhaps. Still, he has his artistic baby. He has loyalty (one would hope) to the people he employed who embraced his vision. Who knows what sort of non-disclosure he might or might not be obligated by. Leaking Spoilers is a very effective promotional strategy, and it always seems they are leaked according to quite deliberate plans to build interest. Al seems like a entertainment business man, what would it do to his reputation to sabotage the big twist? If there is one. Sure there may not be one, but "Al would never lie" rings a little hollow to me.

As is, yes she's fine, but if they were to reboot the Superman comics and retell everything, then depending on where the story started, then her backstory might need some work and Chlois is just a variation on the origin. A rose by any other name and all that.



Chlois should not be the ending of Smallville. Superman should be the ending.

I really hope that Chlois stuff could happen early enough so as to not intrude on the end point.

Most likely the ending will be just murky enough to keep speculation going on forever.

What is certain to me is the end of Chlimmy. Even if the writers stretch it out for awhile, by proposing, we will get a definitive yes or no to the relationship. I have no doubt a Sullivan/Olsen wedding is not going to make it into the comics. I do think that it won't be resolved right away, but Chlimmy parallels Clana too well for their to be any intention of it sticking around.

Nothing to see here.

I must admit I find this a "wow" statement. Not because I believe in the theory (I don't) but because I never thought Al would be asked that question nor would I think he'd answer it. Don't get me wrong, I see it as a perfectly viable theory and a good question but anything that nails down Chloe's future is usually avoided like the plague. I don't know why we can't get a little more insight on how TPTB feel about Chloe these days but it usually seems like we never do. It's always vague "she's essential" and "AM is great". The statements are very "now" or "past tense", no sense of future what-so-ever (Except the "Chloe will always love Clark"). This response from Al says (in my mind) they have ruled out a particular Chloe endpoint.

So... speculating on what we learned from TPTB behaviors in S7, I think there are two additional indicators (beyond Al's statement) that they were forced to reveal due to external circumstances. Although S8 was probable at the time, I still contend that they felt compelled to at least hint at the "end" direction with the original Veritas in the unlikely chance that the not only did the strike end S7, but there was no "wrap up" in a S8 because the series wasn't picked up. If you go back to what they were doing at the end of Descent, IA with others, having Chloe fired may have been their "makeshift ending" for the season and possible series. Chloe fired, Lana in a coma, Kara off-planet, Lionel killed by Lex (thus making him uber-evil) and finding the FoS. Now we have no indicators that Chloe being fired was ever a pre-strike scene written let alone filmed so this may not be the case, but running on speculation only --- perhaps they felt compelled to at least get her out of the Daily Planet. The second indicator is Chloe's arrest in Arctic. At this point they had a S8 but no AM on contract -- so they hedged their bet with Chloe out of the Daily Planet and out of Clark's life (at least temporarily).. and Lois is suddenly more "around" than in previous episodes. Not a great endstate but we all speculated a "smash & grab" operation by the junior JL could be a plausible scenario in offscreenville. My point to all of this: I think the fact that both psuedo end-states potentially had her away from the Daily Planet indicates that they envision Chloe something different than just another reporter at the DP who is close to Clark. ETA: If the SAG does strike, that could really be an interesting twist -- I'd like to see what they have for scripts before the strike (if it were to happen) and what it looked like after.

As for the comics, while they certainly are far more outlandish in what they will do there (4 Superman... really?) I would expect that they'd want more than a token use of Chloe for the comics. In fact, I imagine they'd set her up with a substantive new plot line because there is much backstory to plumb there. I firmly believe that comics fans who dislike SV are in for a rude awakening as the comics try to shift the backstory to be more in line with SV versus SV continuity completely dropping out of existence. So, for example, Clois fan purists will have to accept that in the future Clana was indeed a big deal in Clark's past -- much more than a high school crush. Similarly, I don't expect Chloe's relationship with Clark to suddenly evaporate as never having existed. Again, a bitter pill for those in the Clois crowd (which is not every Clois fan I'm sure) who don't like anyone but Lois and Clark ever being "special". When they tried that theory of a completely different Chloe in the comics, it certainly wasn't well received in any fandom I ran across. Still, it's possible for them to use Chloe without her Chlark backstory but it seems like a waste to me. Finally, I also suspect when they got the rights to Chloe, the royalties issue was determined at that time. Otherwise, they really don't have "rights" to Chloe. SO, they've already figured out what the numbers look like and whether or not she's a profitable character for comics. However, there also has to be some clause that says that SV has the right to kill off Chloe in the series or reshape her character if they want to rather than pin them down to a future end-state for the TV show. They have enough end-states pinned down, I can't imagine they want to lose even more wiggle room. Conversely, perhaps the original Busiek "starting point" for Chloe was too disconnected from the SV backstory. We've speculated the "spike" came from on-high trying to protect SV ... what if the "spike" came on high from the comics bosses, trying to protect actually using the SV backstory for the comics more extensively?

Bottom line: I think they potentially telegraphed Chloe's endstate as not at the Daily Planet with their two "psuedo endstate" moments in S7 and Al's comment to Craig. Further, I think if Chloe survives, she'll be in the comics and that they'll merge the backstory rather than drop the SV continuity out of existence.

Upon reflection, I moved my comments to the Chlois thread.

Money. Grabbing a tv audience now invested in Chloe and Chlois and putting their own spin on it? Getting the comics audience reinvested in a storyline where their much beloved characters have a meatier storyline because Chlois gives them a ICK and an ILL who were best friends before they were lovers, have seen the best and worst of each other and go on to have this amazing relationship when they’re older. It strengthens ILL as a character, IMO, because it makes her so much more a part of his story.



However, if you believe Al's word, and since Al is no longer part of the show, I would argue that Chlois is just as possible an ending now - PS3 don't need to consult with him to do a Chloisy ending. PS3, with 22 episodes of AM, sound like they're gearing up for a Chloisy ending to me. They haven't upp-ed ED's episodes, and neither has there been a reappearance of a "LnC"-like quote for season 8.



Chlois doesn't call for much of a character change to my mind, but YMMV, obviously. To satisfy comics fans, PS3 have 22 episodes with which to bring Chloe character-wise to match ILL in the comics closer than ever, and that's a better proposition than fading to black at the end of the series and leaving the audience to image an iconic relationship for Clark and Nois in Offscreenville - which is the only ending they have left if they go that way, again YMMV. 13 episodes, however isn't enough to make me believe in a realtionship between those two, even if Chloe had gone off to star city, and that is a bigger problem they have. Their names just don't cut it on this show anymore.

The comics - wasn't there talk about a reboot last year - happily redo everything ever so often as I understand it, I have no idea why re-doing ILL's backstory is a big deal. I mean, how often, unless it's a specific story involving her past, do her parents, childhood schooling etc affect a storyline anyway?



What about out of respect to PS3? It's probably the safest answer he can give considering he's out of the show, that won't undermine PS3 as the showrunners and their storylines.

re: the Peterson quote - How is that any different from anything else AlMiles has said at the beginning of every other season since Nois arrived? Not to mention, how much has changed since that quote? Lex is gone, AlMiles is gone, extra character are addeds etc. I don't think that quote is an indicator of where the season is going at all. I think it's just their standard fare that they say at the beginning of every season.

Oh yes he does.

If Chlois doesn't happen and there is a fan uproar, then later Al Gough could say that they were going to do it, but the newPTB decided not to.

If it doesn't happen and fans are happy, it's his idea

If they do, he can take credit later, calling it his idea. If they do, and there is an uproar, it wasn't his idea, never planned it.

He said no, because that's what they've always said it wasn't, despite all the hints and anvils for it.

So IMHO, it had different meanings then out right truthfulness.

Afterall AL said we'll get the Lois Lane we all know and love, and we got Grois with rejected articles.

Regarding Chloe's endpoint -- I have a hard time taking anything from Al & Miles completely at face value especially regarding the future direction of the show. But one thing I do believe is Al & Miles steadfast claim that Smallville is a tragedy. When Clark defeats Lex the audience is not supposed to be rooting for Lex's defeat because they hate him. They're supposed to be morning his tragic fall into darkness. When Clark and Lana break up the audience isn't supposed to be relieved Clark finally gave the bitch the boot (though many will be). They're supposed to be sad that fate has torn these star crossed lovers apart.

The "tragic" nature of the the show is the primary reason I think they've always kept Lois at arms length. This isn't Lois' story because Lois' story isn't tragic. You can't make the relationship of Lois and Clark central to a tragedy, at least not without great skill and planning. How is the audience supposed to feel bad about Clark losing Lana and Lex while at the same time feel happy about him hooking up with someone else? That's a daunting task for any story teller.

All signs point to Clark and Chloe heading for tragedy. I'm not saying it's impossible TPTB will take a hatchet their tragic set up and give Clark and Chloe a happy ending. It could happen. But I seriously doubt it. The very fact so many viewers want a happy ending for Clark and Chloe belies the fact it's probably been set up that way for a reason. And it's not so the audience can squee when Clark and Chloe finally consummate their love. It's to break their hearts when they don't.

I'm not convinced we'll ever see a return to Clark being "attracted" to Chloe. If we do I think the most likely sequence of events is Chloe's demise comes shortly after Clark finally realizes what she means to him. It's the classic Hollywood tragedy dolled out year after year, not to mention the template for the highest grossing movie of all time.

Agreed, but the one in Smallville completely doesn't do the comic justice, hell I think she trashed the name to the point Chlois is the only way to redeem the name.


I'd believe that is where it was heading if they continued, but we have PS3 now, and they may not follow that concept.

Chloe getting fired was always a part of "Descent" and nothing prepared before... originally, her last scenes would have been Lionel coming to see her (as shown), and then going to the hospital with Clark to see Lana. She really had no conclusion, which is why I was saying back then "they'd have to bring her back for at least the first episode of Season 8."

I do know a goal was to get Chloe out of the DP, in order to get Lois (and Clark) in, but I think that was for those last five episodes, not for "Veritas."



Then he wouldn't have said it on the record for the Season 7 companion.



What happens if Chloe's route in S8 isn't "ILL" but the continued "sidekick and protector of Clark" instead?



See, to me, I LIKE the element that Lois liked Superman before she really warmed to Clark. That is "iconic Lois Lane" in my mind. Although Smallville didn't do it, I also prefer that Clark didn't know her until he arrived at Metropolis at the DP. She represents his life in Metropolis as Lana represented his life in Smallville. To merge Lois into that undermines her character to me.

I don't think there is a Chlois "twist" planned for the final episode or Season 8 at all. Twists are usually things people don't expect at all... there'd really be no surprise when it happens, if it were to happen. I think expecting or demanding it at this point is a set-up for disappointment.

ETA:



That's a matter of opinion... there are a lot of people who ARE fans of SV's Lois. If there weren't, places like D-I would not exist. A lot of the Lois fans I've encountered tend to be offline, but they're still out there and thriving.

To me, that means Lois Lane is supper shallow. She only warmed to Clark because he's superman, and so dating a hero is a big deal, and she'll be known as "Superman's girlfriend" Oh the fame.


You right, I'll be disappointed because they'd screw over the Orignal fans of the show. Chloe has to be written totally differently to satisfy the "mythos" they crapped on for 7 years anyway. EDLois is an Insult IMHO, to reporters, working women, and some ILL fans.

Lois's early thing for Superman IS super shallow. But it's also been a part of the character for 70 years.

At least in the modern continuity, she liked Superman first, THEN she developed a thing for Clark, and they were both engaged to be married before he finally told her the truth a few issues after the engagement. So, her love for Clark was not shallow... it was just something separate from the Superman thing.