I'm just going to have to respectfully disagree on the Lexana issue with everyone. I don't think Lana trying to help Lex would necessarily make her a martyr, but I can see the concerns that people would have about the issue.



I wouldn't mind seeing Lexana done like that too. It's too early though to determine just how they'll end up doing it.

Do you s'pose that Lex has a Black 1967 Chevy Impala in the garage...? (Sorry, Supernatural obsession poking through for a moment... Imagining Lex and Dean racing their twin hell-chasing machines...)

It tends to do that at the oddest times.

As I said before, the problem with any Lexana scenario is that, because of the way SV has handled storylines involving Lana in the past, it's really hard to imagine any of them being done well. For example, while I was typing my objections to a "Lana tries to save Lex" storyline, I was thinking of places where I'd seen that kind of storyline work. But this is SV, so it's hard to imagine them doing it with the same kind of depth and complexity those other shows have. The "Lana is a self-sacrificing martyr" treatment seems much more likely.

Yay! 100th post! Who will die?

-My Lex love
-My Lana hate
-My faith in humanity
-Aquaman

And the winner is:
Aquabro by a landslide! Hooray! *throws confetti*
Aquabro is now officially dead to me, AlMiles. I really don't want to see a series, not if you're going to do it. Ugh.

And now, back to Smallville.
I may be wrong, but I've always gotten this impression that Lex's problem is that he really doesn't believe he can escape the drakness if he has to make the effort himself. Maybe he doesn't really want to escape it, but from time to time he still rejects it as a way to rebel against Lionel. I don't know if it's because of his low self-esteem, or because of his bullheaded belief in destiny/evol!genes, but he's tried to get other people to save him before. Helen in Precipice, and there's the drakness around my pants speech to Clark in Devoted. He also told Pamela he would be a better man if she had stayed [to save him]. I would go as far as saying that he was also OK with letting MurderousRed save the world from his drakness in Bound. I think deep down Lex believes he ultimately can't do anything about who he is precisely because of who he is, and that's why he seeks salvation in others. Perhaps Desiree sensed this in Lex and that's why she told him she was there to save him.

Not that I want Lana martyring herself. I consider her too selfish and pretty evol herself to want to "save" Lex.

eta
I made it to Loyal Viewer! Yeah! :D

I really do genuinely like Lex a lot (he and Clark are my favorite characters), but honestly? I've always thought Lex's whole "You keep the darkness at bay in me/you broke down the wall around my heart/you would have made me a better person" schtick is, frankly, emotional manipulation, pure and simple. Every time he's used it, it's been after he's done something which the other person in question hugely disapproves of (Helen in Visage, Clark in Bound, Clark in Devoted) or, in Pamela's case, the person was dying and he was trying to make amends, in some way, for having been kind of awful to them in the last few days/weeks of their life. *I* even fell for it at the end of Bound, to the point where I was completely appalled at Clark for his response to Lex in that scene, but then, like, two or three episodes later, in Unsafe, there's that lovely little throwaway moment where Lex kisses his fencing instructor and tells her he'll meet her upstairs after he's done dealing with Lionel. I mean, if Lex really did feel so bad about sleeping around with all those poor womens in Bound, then what's he doing getting busy with his fencing instructor less than a month later? Especially given that it appears to be a fencing-partners-with-benefits, casual type of deal. I think Lex uses his poor little boy lost to the darkness of his soul routine as a means of escaping the harsher admonition and judgment he might otherwise get if he'd ever just say to someone he's just screwed over or in some other way really hurt or disappointed, "Yeah, I fucked you over, but I had my own reasons for doing it" or "Yeah, this was bad behavior and you know what? I don't care that you don't approve."

Lex is *capable* of making choices. This is why I can't and don't put any stock in his claims that he needs someone else to keep him on the straight and narrow. He could do that himself, if he wanted to. But it's much easier to claim he doesn't have any control, or to make it someone else's responsibility, so he doesn't have to feel bad about it when he goes ahead and does exactly what he wants to do even if he knows what he wants to do is wrong/could hurt other people/is shady in some way. I just don't buy that someone who has such a sense of his own capacity for things that he actively plans to Be Great one day nevertheless lacks the capacity to *refrain from doing shit that screws other people over or hurts them in some way*.

To take it a step further and bring this around to S5, I think the main reason I've actually enjoyed Lex's increasing darkness is precisely because it's springing from a place of Lex finding personal strength, not putting up with bullshit from others, and *not* relying on/expecting others to make him happy/make him whole, etc. He's not looking to Clark or the Kents or, really, anyone else any more for personal validation; he's finally developed a sense and understanding of his own worth, internal darkness and all. In light of that, I have to admit that I'd actually be truly *surprised* to hear one of those "You're what helps keep the darkness at bay" speeches in S5, because (1) Lex isn't interested in keeping the darkness at bay any more, and (2) Lex *isn't looking for* someone else to save him any more because he doesn't think he needs to be "saved". YMMV, of course, but I think *that* particular weapon in Lex's arsenal of emotional manipulation has probably been retired.

He's a guy and she was cute.

Okay, the real reason is probably poor writing.

In Bound, Lex should have told Clark that it was none of his business, that he appreciated the help on the trial that Clark and Chloe provided, but if they were going to judge him in his personal life, they could both go to hell.

The only way I can imagine Lexana working is if the writers borrowed the Angel-Lindsay-Darla template. (For non-Angel watchers, Lindsay's a man. A hot man.) Anyway... Lindsay was obsessed with Angel and sought redemption from him but was lured back to the dark side by an older man offering wealth and power. Then Lindsay fell for Darla, Angel's ex-girlfriend and ongoing obsession. Thus, a triangle was born but what redeemed the cliche was that Darla was, by far, the sharpest, smartest point of the triangle, well aware of where Lindsay's interests still truly lay. At one point, discussing Angel, she tells Lindsay: "It's not me you want to screw; it's him."

Unfortunately, though the writers seem keen to import other elements from the Buffy-verse, I can't see TPTB allowing Lana to be that smart or empowered. Which is a shame because after five years as a passive, pink football, punted from guy to guy, KK deserves at least a shot at a decent plot arc.

Exactly. Lex is very good at pushing blame onto someone/something else and justifying his own misdeeds. He never knows what's going on with his own hired scientist or at LuthorCorp, despite, ya'know, being part of the damn management. He believes that he shouldn't be judged by his father or his last name, yet pulls out his "woe is me, poor little unloved rich-boy" routine all the time. He's never taken full blame for any of his wrongdoings, it's always because he can't help himself due to the "darkness" growing inside him. He's like the boyfriend that always cheats on you and is sorry afterwards.

What's interesting is that MR plays Lex as utterly convinced in his own bullshit. If he had played him in any way as smarmy or insincere when making his apologies, I doubt there'd be so many cries of "anti-hero" and "woobie!" When Lex is repentent onscreen, the audience finds it easy to believe he'll change. I do think Lex is sorry every time Clark/Lana/the Kents/whoever is angry with him, but it's never enough to stop him from doing bad shit the next time around.

Really, Lex is not a good guy and he's as passive-aggressive as Lana at times. But I don't care. He's still my favorite character.

I think he is convinced of the bullshit. He's so obsessed with the idea of destiny, that I don't think he feels he is responsible for any of the bad stuff he does. And I think that it's his inability to take responsibility for his actions that ultimately leads to his ultimate villain status. If he took responsibility for any of his actions he might actually change. That said, I don't think he really wants to do things differently. He believes he's destined for greatness and if this bad stuff that he does is what's going to get him there, then so be it. But what I think, and hope, that we are seeing is him increasingly not feeling remorse for his actions. Eventually he has to start owning them.

Dread, IA about Bound. That whole ep. was wonky.

Y'all make interesting points about Lex. The idea that he believes his own BS is interesting. But as far as responsibility, it seems to me no one ever takes full ownership of their misdeeds. No one is ever truly accountable. Clark stole Lex's car and didn't admit to it, broke into his plane in mid flight, etc. He reeked hovac on Red!K, but that was something he chose too. He involved himself in Memoria and then blamed Lex for Lionel experimenting on him. Wah? Clark isn't excused for all his shizzle just because he is supposed to be the hero, imo.

Anywho, I felt Lex was being genuine with his efforts to change. He did good things (saving the kids in Jitters, giving the kents back their farm, etc.) and received no positive reactions. Sure the Kents acted as though they would accept him in Pheonix, but then we have Shattered and the "Lex? We hardly even know that kid!" attitude. If I felt they had made a genuine effort to help Lex, I would say "well, they did what they could but Lex simply wouldn't come half way". I might actually like them. If Clark didn't come accross as a self-centered ass, I might appreciate him. And sure, I don't see Bo and Martha as evil, but they sure ain't anything special, again imo. Yeah they didn't have to try and help Lex. But if they are to be the good guys in my eyes, they should have. Yes Lex should make the decision to be better himself, but I empathize because nothing good he has done has been positively reinforced. Yet his shadiness has been greeted with "well, what else do you expect from Luthor". Why shouldn't he believe that is all he is good for? Even if he is being emotionally manipulative with the "darkness at bay" stuff, it doesn't seem to do much good. Clark hasn't acted friendly toward him since, I suppose, mid s3. If I empathized with Clark (or really anyone else), then I might care. But I don't.

This biggest problem for me. I never got the impression that anyone ever made a true effort to reach out to Lex: not the kents, not lana, and not clark. Oh sure, Clark has saved his life more than once, helped prove his innocence in Bound, etc. but when has Clark emotionally acted as a friend? For me, Shattered is the only glaring example. Sure he came for him in Asylum. but that was after a freakin' month had passed! He knew Lex had been drugged and could have used the info he had on Clark to get out of the Lionel brain fry, but he didn't. Better late than never? I don't know. And then comes over to see Lex alone, and basically comes across with "looks like your still coherent, Lex! that's good. Sorry but I can't talk to you now. I have to go stare with angst across a room at Lana." Ugh! Sorry. Don't know were all of that came from...

I guess what I mean to say is that I don't care how Lex will treat anyone else around him from here on out. Why should he want to change anyway? For these people? Nah...Even if Lex actively believes he is destined for evol, drakness, or whatever, nothing external has ultimately served to convince him of the contrary. Again, did I miss something? Probably. I don't know :/ To steal from Rock, I'm not saying he should do x, y, and z...but I understand.

Sorry for the super ramble, the Clark antagonism, some OT, and if you read this. Don't know if it made sense, even to me.

Well, how about Precipice? Helen wasn’t pissed off at him then, matter of fact he had just saved her life, but still he used the “keep the drakness at bay” line. It may be a meta issue, because we can’t know for sure what Lex is thinking unless he tells someone, and there’s always a risk of sounding emotionally manipulative when sharing that kind of think. Anyway, I don’t think the problem is his ability to make his own choices, but that he thinks he needs someone he considers “good” to judge and approve/admonish him for the results. Like Orestes said:

Exactly. It’s always been a lose/lose situation for Lex. Anything good is basically regarded as a fluke, while everything bad is “see, I told you he was evol!” and all the people he thought were good enough to judge him ended up disappointing him.

Now TPTP seem to be going in a different direction, but I wish we had gotten an “ends justify the means” kind of Lex who truly believes he’s doing the right thing, no matter how terrible his actions. It would show how Lex does try to be good and great on his own, but commits atrocities on the way because he lacks the guidance he used to seek in Clark, Helen, etc. Too bad this Utilitarian!Lex ship has sailed. :(

I agree that he’s obsessed with the whole destiny thing and believes his own destiny/evol!genes BS too, that being the reason why he often doesn’t take responsibility for his actions (much like most other characters on the show, as has been pointed out). There’s this great quote that always reminds me of Smallville and the writers’ own obsession with destiny: "Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart - the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny. On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other."

Your post does make a lot of sense, Orestes, and I share your disappointment in Clark and Co. I don’t think the future Superman should ever really give up on someone, especially not someone who’s shown some potential for goodness in the past. Clark rarely tries to understand, though, at least IMHO. He and everyone else are always too ready to judge and condemn. Even his defending Lex to Fine seemed uninspiring to me. Any sane person would agree that Lex’s evol so far pales in comparison to that of Hitler and Stalin.

Anyway, back to the topic, now I’m not really sure if Lex still wants to be saved this season (whether you believe he used to want it or not). It was probably dependent on whether or not this was going to be the show’s last season. The “Lana will never love you” thing and what I know about Lexmas (very little, admittedly) make me think they’re still going for the “last shot at salvation” scenario. Back in Ageless (ugh) Lex didn’t seem too keen on having a kid (was that evol or woobie? I don’t know), but in Lexmas he (apparently) likes the idea? I’m confused.

But still: Lana is no savior. She’s not good enough for Clark and I don’t see why she should be good enough for Lex. Clark doesn’t want anything nearly as grand as salvation from her, he'd just like a little understanding, and we all know the bitch wouldn’t give it to him. Why would she want to “save” Lex? Why Lex seems to think she’s good enough to be either his Evol! queen or his savior is a great mystery to me.

Word, Pips D. That's the Metropolis fic Lex, who's convinced he does things for greater good.

Question: how do you think season three Lex (not the light-switched version) would have reacted towards Clark after seeing Superman!Clark (and recognizing him: he's not an idiot)? Will he just be bitter about it? Act against Clark?

Edited because it's polite to spell people's nick right.

I think we will probably still get an Evil!Lex who is largely motivated by an 'ends justify the means' sort of philosophy. I think what we're seeing in eps like 'Aqua' is a Lex who still wants to do 'great' things (such as single-handedly ensuring the supremacy of the U.S. military), while at the same time

A) Having an increasingly skewed moral compass, so that the concepts of 'great' and 'good' wind up having increasingly little to do with each other; and

B) Having increasingly little regard for the 'human element' in his equations (i.e., 'killing a few fish is a small price to pay for protecting our nation's fleet' and bullsh*t like that.... how long before 'killing a few fish' becomes killing/endangering the lives of a few people?)

He was asking her to marry him. What better way to sway her to say "yes" than by appealing to the idea that she's the brightest, shiniest star in his moral constellation? Helen's a medical doctor, which means that on some level, the idea of helping/saving people appeals to her in some way. Lex is simply pushing the same button there with Helen that he pushed with Clark in Devoted - the need to feel like their actions can 'save' a person in some way. It's still manipulation, because Lex knows Helen would probably have perfectly good reasons for saying "no" (the Chamber of Clark Kent being a big one), so he's laying it on thick enough that if she's at all on the fence about spending her life with him, it'll push her in the direction of "yes".

Basically, for me, the context -- trying to assuage someone's anger at you vs. trying to get them to marry you - doesn't matter: Telling another person that you think they are or somehow should be responsible for *your* moral agency is a really emotionally manipulative thing to do. And I don't think it's coincidence that every time Lex has whipped out that line, it's been in a situation where he is trying to get another person to do something he wants -- whether that's to stop being mad at him, to forgive him for something he's done wrong, or to marry him.

Lucy, a thousand apologies for taking so long to address your question. I don’t quite understand it, though. You mean if he hadn’t been brainwiped? Or when, exactly? I ask because I think there are lots of moments in S3 that could affect his reaction, so I think it’s relevant to pinpoint a certain moment for it (I’m probably the last person you should be asking this, though! I’m hardly the most articulate TWoPper on board, but if you still want me to answer I’ll give it a try. I love discussing Lexian matters :) ).

Haven’t read Metropolis yet, but everybody keeps mentioning it so I guess I’ll check it out as soon as I get the chance.

Atropos, I hope you’re right, but Lexmas didn’t exactly give me confidence that this is the approach they’ll go for. The message was too muddled and simplistic. Time will tell, but I'd be very surprised if it really were what I’ve “waited to see”.

LaT, a thousand apologies to you too! Anyway, here we go: Yeah, I know in that case Lex wanted Helen to marry him, but I brought it up because you said before that every time he's used it it's been as some sort of apology or “get out of jail free” card. OK, I see what you mean, that context doesn’t matter… However, I think it does matter in this case. I kind of see it as a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. Is it manipulative in this case if it is the truth? It really did seem to me that in Precipice Lex was honest about why he wanted to marry her. He could’ve killed the guy and gotten away with it, but didn’t. And he didn’t keep this information from her; he tells her what happened, what he intended to do, and what made him act differently. IMHO, Precipice is proof that Lex really does believe the whole “you keep the drakness away” thing. The way I see it, not telling her he was using her as his moral compass would have been worse. We know she would’ve married him anyway because she was evol, but if she hadn’t been, in telling her his reason he gave her a chance to decide whether or not she could deal with being that person for him. It’s a matter of perspective, I guess.

In the end it all boils down to whether or not you believe that he believes what he’s saying or not. It's a good matter of discussion. But I hope it's safe to say that neither of us approves of his behavior: You don’t approve because you consider it manipulation; I don’t approve because I consider it weakness/stupidity. Even though it may sound like I’m defending Lex, in reality my opinion of him is actually worse than yours… you believe him to be stronger than I give him credit for.

After Lexmas, though, I agree that Lex isn't looking for any kind of salvation anymore, and I really hope he stays the manipulative bastard that you've thought him to be for a while now. ;)

Considering how well King Kong is doing these days, I find myself wondering how long it'll be before Smallville brings on -- Titano! ;)

They've done knock-offs of so many other popular films and series, it seems like only a matter of time before they take some crack and attempt the giant gorilla motif. Or, a less specific big monkey, to avoid litigation.

In the old days, Titano also had a soft spot for Lois. So that might be something amusing for our Nois to get involved in.

ETA: (Though, in this particular cover's scenario, that would have to be Chlois, talking the monkey into donning lead shades...)

I'm thinking more along the lines of a mutated giant heifer which climbs to the top of the Talon. It could fall in love with Lois and her banana-blueberry muffins.

Hah, and gives her a giant cow-lick that lifts her right off the ground.

Oh, but Bo would've been a good Fay Wray type -- imagine his anguish as the armed forces move in on his beloved Giant Bessie.

Hahah... I wonder if Bessie's other mutation, besides gigantism, would've been the ability to voluntarily fire Kryptonite-laced streams of milk at Clark when he tries to corral her. "Agh!"

We started talking about Lana on the spoiler thread and my post got away from spoiler talk, so I'm bringing it over here.

there are parts of Lana that I think are potentially interesting.
Things come easily to Lana so she seems to value them little which is something unique to her. She is fickle and demanding which is also unique to her on the show. And yes, it may be a result of all the pity thrown her way as an orphan or because she is so beautiful, but at least it is something different that she brings to the story. I thought Adam calling her out about this attitude was about the most interesting thing the show has ever done with her. I wouldn't mind seeing Lex do the same. Actually, if they go down this Lexana route they keep threatening the audience with, then that probably the best case scenario for their interaction.

I think it's interesting that Lana and Lex are victims of the aliens, while Chloe hasn't been one yet. It sets up an interesting comparison. Yes, Chloe is fascinated by aliens, but she didn't suffer a huge childhood trauma (loss of parents for Lana and looking like a freak for Lex) due to an alien coming to town and she hasn't been choked by a few of them (Aesther and Clark for Lana and Namek for Lex) either. So, in a way, Chloe accepting aliens isn't as big a deal as Lana or Lex doing so.

What I would like to see for Lana is a real struggle between doing what Lex will probably do and reject Clark forever and being a true friend like Chloe. After a realistic freak out and anger moment whenever Clark tells her the truth, the most I'd want to see from Lana is her putting some distance between her and Clark, but ultimately deciding that she still wants to be with him. But, by that point, I want Clark to be over her. I'd want Clark to be over her by that point b/c this primarily the story of Clark Kent's growth and I'd like to see him wise up and realize that Lana is not the perfect person he thinks she is and move on from his childhood obsession with her. If he does this, then Lana Lang's role in his life will be back in the proper perspective to me. Lana Lang is NOT the love of his life. Again, she is the girl he should leave behind, not be the girl who got away which suggests some dissatisfaction with his future with his future wife. "If onlys" and regrets about the past are for people who don't like where they end up and I'd like to think that Superman/Clark Kent will love where he ends up once he has a taste of it.

My new spec (more wishful thinking, but hey, it could happen, AlMiles lurrrrrrrrrve their triangles…) is that eventually Lois, Chloe, and The Daily Planet will begin to form a bit of a triangle. Lois will become an intern as well (perhaps after reapplying to college, or some other way yet to be determined) and at first Chloe and Lois will be happy together there. But then Lois begins to advance more quickly than Chloe. She gains a minor promotion despite working there less time than Chloe. Chloe would become very bitter ("I've been doing this a lot longer than you, I care about it more, and I deserve this promotion more"), and in an exact mirror of the Clark/Lana/Chloe triangle, she wouldn't react well. Feeling that her dream career was slipping away from her, she'd turn to Lionel (or someone else, or perhaps she could do this by herself) and say, "I need you to create a story. It needs to be big. It needs to be something I can make my name with."

I love how snugly it fits with the Chlarkana triangle and its outcome. And it's completely in character for Chloe to react badly when she feels the things she wants are slipping away from her, whether those things are Clark or her career. She's been happier lately, partially because she hasn't been confronted with the possibility of the loss of Clark's friendship or her career. However, when we've seen her threatened in this season, the cracks have shown. She reacted to Kahn in a very bitchy and entitled way (and lied to her) when she felt that her deserved internship was going to go to someone else, and she's also been ruthlessly ambitious in her pursuit of career advancement (taking the lead in Exposed). One might even consider the anonymous tip that she made that enabled her to write about the arrest of the diplomat's son as minor foreshadowing that she's willing to make her own news to get ahead (I actually don't believe this, I think it was just an oversight by the writers, but wow, I'd be so pleased if it was actually purposeful).

In addition to that, it has inbuilt potential for developing Lois further. We'll get to see her developing skills as an intern, and how her natural talent for the job tips the scales for her when it comes to the promotion. We'd get a much better chance to compare/contrast Chloe and Lois' investigative and writing styles, and even their ethical views. And then through Chloe's duplicity, we could see Lois react to that and grow further in opposition to it.

Could be interesting. I can't imagine how we're going to compare their writing styles, though, unless their articles are read aloud, or published in an online version of The Daily Planet AND accepted as canon. As to Chloe's total, head-snapping reversion to Evol despite the fact of her previous repentance of her actions, her punishment for them, and her more scrupulous behavior since (as witness, for example, her urging of Clark to tell Lana the truth despite her desire to remain the only one in the know) - I can imagine a really talented set of writers making me believe it, but not the ones we have right now. As it is, I can't imagine these writers making it plausible that she would grow THAT long a moustache to twirl.

Hmm, well, as you know I don't think she has changed as much as you do. But I really don't find an overreaction on that level out of character. I think Chloe would do anything to save her career, and thinks that anything is justified to ensure herself that particular future. She hasn't had to go that far as of yet to secure herself, but then she also really hasn't been confronted yet with an obstacle that would require such a nefarious plan to overcome.

I think it's a plausible, in character spec that they wouldn't have to try all that hard to sell. Chloe reacts to setbacks with huge emotion and impulsive decisions. And since this would be directly affecting her raison d'être, I can see her reacting very badly.

Mmmm, no. That's like saying that Clark could easily go on another bender of Red-K. And you are forgetting the wound that would cause to Clark's psyche. Why would he trust ANYBODY after that? Especially since Clana is supposed to implode this season and Lois barely registers on his radar AND as a relative of Chloe and the blah-blah about apples not falling far from the tree, he could then tar Lois as evil seed as well.

I think Clark has had more development since his Red K bender such that I would find it out of character. Although, perhaps if the impetus were terrible/tragic enough...

But Chloe's interview with Kahn inclines me to believe that she still feels entitled to her career in such a way that she'd react very badly if it started to become clear that she wasn't becoming as successful as she'd like, or if something was making it slip away from her.

And of course it would have an effect on Clark's psyche, but to me that's not a particularly compelling reason to keep Chloe a plaster saint forever. Indeed, I felt that both her "I'd die before I'd ever betray you" line and Clark's defenses to Prof Fine about the loyalty of humanity when Fine was condemning them as duplicitous were anvils about Chloe's own impending duplicity.

Then you want Lois to jump in her place? Be Clark's Best female friend/scoobier and all that? Then with the Clana in trouble, Clark turns to her for emotional support as well? That's going to smell like major Mary Sue. And problematic if it requires Lois to learn the secret as well after such a significant betrayal. Also, this should make Lois HATE journalism as she might see it as a bad influence on her cousin. In fact, this should make Clark NEVER want a partner in scoobying but remain a lone wolf for the rest of his life.

Yeah, Chloe has Lexian tendencies BUT Clark has to believe people in general can learn and restrain themselves from going bad because otherwise there's no reason why Clark should stop himself from ruling the damn world because humans are inherently evil, hypocritical bastards. And I don't think the Kents are plaster saints. They've done things as bad or worse than her.

So you basically want her to "out" Clark? That's NOT going to push him into the DP. He'll just think all news media= Inquirer.

Making Chloe evil just smells like making one of Lana's boyfriends evil. It's a copout and I'm soooooo tired of it. Make Lois better, not someone evil.

It's just too much like the Helen thing where suddenly she's an evil gold digger when at the beginning she's a doctor who's interested in other things.

Well, Chloe's act may not be discovered/revealed for a long while, especially as it doesn't directly affect Clark. I don't want/need Lois to jump in there as confidante. Actually, I find Chloe's role at the moment very problematic as the whole confidante/support thing is very restrictive for her as a character and limits the scope of her actions. In addition to that, depending on what kind of story she creates, she might just end up as a disgraced Jayson Blair/Stephen Glass type who could still be friends with Clark.

However, I disagree that it would make Lois hate *journalism*, though it would warn her of the dangers of prizing ambition over ethics. Indeed, it might even encourage her to want to pursue journalism for the *right* reasons.

ETA:

When did I ever say anything about outing Clark? Or even specifically making Chloe *evil*? And it would make far more sense than the Helen thing, as it builds upon Chloe's sense of entitlement and tendency to overreact and her extreme ambition. It's not a copout. I think it would be an interesting thing to explore the darker side of the power of the press through Chloe.

Interesting spec, radioreverie, but I don't really see them going that route. They've put Chloe into the hero-worshipping/cheerleader role when it comes to Clark this season, she's the one who reminds us that he will be Superman one day and she represents the people who will be inspired and uplifted by his great deeds in the future. And yeah, that sounds sort of cheesy but I couldn't think of a better way to say it. Personally, I'm totally indifferent to the Chloe character and would probably find her more interesting if she did go evil. However, I really can't see it happening and agree with those who say that it would echo too much other lightswitched evil doers on the show like Helen and Jason.

So, are you saying that Lois has no dark side? That there's nothing to explore? That she's never going to skate some majorly grey area?

I don't see how seeing a friend get ruined in a job would make me want the job more. She already doesn't like the job, seeing her cousin ruined would be offputting not "yeah, now that I see my cousin crying and utterly ruined, I want to jump right in!" It's going to seem very . . . off. I'm more likely to check out a job that my friend is enthused about and constantly shows off as interesting and exciting especially if I'm bored with my life.

I think if they were going to make Chloe a member of Team Lex, then it really should've started in S4 where Lex and Chloe could have interacted with each other much more. The one good thing about that would've been more Chlex, little to no Lexana last and this season but . . . they didn't. I say Team Lex as Lex has canon influence over newspapers, etc. and would be someone I'd try to curry favor with if I was blindly ambitious.

Also, Lois w/o a big story herself is not believable as getting into the dP and I don't see how she's going to get a big story or care to get one if she's not the least bit ambitious.

I can't imagine Chloe going evil in the way you are describing. It's not that I like her, which I do, but it just doesn't seem to fit her. Even with younger Chloe I could understand the deal with Lionel. I could have understood her joining Team Lex is Season 4 had been completely different and had starter earlier. But the Chloe now seems so amazed with Clark (not in love with him) that what he does and can do is more important to her than abusing her friendship. If something like Lois being better than her does happen, I can imagine her being bitter but I see her far more as someone who internalizes things rather than would hurt anyone over it.

The problem with any spec I start to develop about Lois-related developments is that...it somes to a dead end rather quickly. The most plausible thing that can happen in my view is that her impending foray into political activism ultimately doesn't satisfy her and she turns to journalism to quell some of those oft-repeated issues with the powerful, seek recourse for what she finds problematic in the world, etc.

This is slightly tangential but I think I'm noticing something here..for the Lois fans that aren't particularly crazy about Lana or Chloe..I'm wondering if Lois, even if she hasn't been developed or expanded now, offers an alternative to be developed. What I mean is, she hasn't made the ssame mistakes and doesn't possess those flaws (simply because she hasn't been sufficiently developed) so in the minds of those people she is the potentiality for them to get things right that the writers got wrong about the other female chracters? I'm still pretty ambivalent about her, it's just something I've picked up on in Lois discussions with people that enjoy her, even offline. It's like "Well, I'm not too crazy about those other two, but she could..." I mean, until now we don't even know Lois actual backstory and what the deal is with her and her family, her passions, etc. They still have time to fill that in, but I'm pesimistic about whether they'll actually do that.

My main problem is...they haven't given me enough to feel one way or the other about her. So even if I do see strains of entitlement coming from Chloe in eps like Thirst (this is something we consistently see when something she *wants* is threatened, and we haven't seen that tested to a significant degree since Exodus; wrt the Clark/RedK analogy...we've seen Clark repeatedly tested with worse traumatic experiences/mistakes since then and he didn't cave to using again) and have problems with her putting the story over actual people like her cousin and Melissa in Exposed...that's not enough to weave a sufficiently believable development for *Lois*. The thing is...there is no viable alternative in my mind until they get to developing Lois. Thoughts of a lightswitch are just infuriating. So while it does parallel the chlarkana triangle and while I do think it's important to note there hasn't been a similar test of Chloe since, Lois is still the major question mark here...we can play around with these different scenarios only insofar as tptb actually develop her (plus I don't think they'll bother to attempt to pull off soemthign that complex). I always end in thinking "Really, what are they doing here." wrt Lois/Chlois Sometimes what they are doing it seems purposeful and other times it's like..ugh.

Please don't strawman my argument, thank you. Yes, there will always be a grey area to explore when it comes to investigative journalism. But I would rather hope that *Lois Lane* would never engage in unethical practices purely for the cause of self-advancement. Not that any person is so inherently good that there'd never be any temptation, but if she actually acted on any such temptation she would no longer be an acceptable reporter, nor a particularly praiseworthy person.


But what would Chloe's ruination have to do with *journalism* specifically? Her downfall would be her own doing, stemming from her own ambition and narcissism, not the particulars of her job. I can still very much see that Lois would want to pursue journalism to expose injustice and corruption, wanting to get it *right* where her cousin lost sight of the purpose of the job.


Well, that remains to be seen. I think (hope) that if they throw her into the DP, they develop that progression believably. Unfortunately, I'm not in charge of the show.


Sigh. Yeah. Fuck. I keep hoping against hope that St. Chloe doesn't fall into an open manhole and die, and thus inspire Lois towards journalism and Clark towards heroism and Lex towards whatever. I keep thinking that these horrible things that Chloe does from episode to episode have to have a purpose other than the writers being too lazy to figure out how to write her so that she has some semblance of a conscience. And that, fuck, they have to get Lois moving at some point. They had such a good base for the character and they're fucking wasting it.

It's a shame, because aside from the Chloe & Lois issues, this season has been really good so far.

Yeah, basically, what may be seen by some as artistically subtle clues about Chloe's future lack of ethics and downfall may just be forgotten plot threads going nowhere. We've seen a lot more of THOSE in the course of Smallville than we've seen carefully plotted hints of future developments that actually pan out into a satisfyng storyline. So, IMO, the odds are pretty bad that the storyline is subtly hinting at anything much.

I'd rather see Clark move into the role of a reporter than Lois.

Clark, at least, is going to college and has some ambition in that regard, while Lois seems perfectly content driving her Ford Fusion around Smallville taking money from a man she despises.

At this point, throwing her into the DP would make very little sense, since Lois has even less of a pedigree than Chloe did. Since Khan wasn't impressed enough with running the school paper for four years, I doubt she'd be gung-ho about hiring an intern whose sole qualification is one article and being able to write out the daily specials at her restaurant.

If they were going to move her into jounalism, I want it to be developed over time. Have Lois get back into college. Maybe she has money trouble, so Chloe suggests writing freelance articles on the side. Have her struggle to get them sold, maybe having to settle for selling them to Smallville's local paper. Have this go on for a season or so, until someone at the DP, maybe at Chloe's suggestion, actually reads her work and decides to start running her articles. And when Chloe leaves Metropolis, there's suddenly an opening for a bright, witty reporter on the staff.

When they can't find a suitable replacement, they hire Lois.

Lois Lane, in the comics, TV and movies, has forwarded her career by writing about a man whose identity she has worked hard to obfuscate. She, and he, become a part of the stories they are writing about on a routine basis. According to you and several others who have stressed how unethical this "writing about the news your making" thing is with Chloe in Exposed, Lois Lane has already gone down this road you don't want her to travel.

The problem is that I need to see Lois actually be tempted by a lot of the same stuff Chloe and do it better to say "OK, that makes sense." I need proof she's this amazing, upright good person that you claim she is because I still think that AlMiles may be keeping her in the background so she doesn't do anything therefore doesn't make any mistakes in journalism therefore remains perfect.

I like Dread's idea if they're going with Lois as SV!Lois and I think some people have said that they like Chloe & Lois being friends . . .

The problem with your scenario is that it hinges on Lois getting into the DP. There's a LOT she has to do before she can believablely get in and compete with Chloe. The last thing I want to see is a retcon of her educational credentials.

If I'm given a sample and finds that it melts at such and such a temperature and shatters at another temperature then someone claims this other sample won't melt until it's twice as hot or shatter until it's twice as cold, I would demand to see tests that show such results. I want Lois to be put into a position where she actually cares very much about getting a story published and see what she does when many of the things she'd have to do are, well, problematic.

I actually wonder how Lois is going to run the campaign whether or not she skirts some ethical issues or whether she's just background noise. If they don't have her face some tempting stuff like wondering if she should use attack ads and other negative campaigning strategies, well, I won't be surprised but it will be a lost opportunity.

For me, I need to see Lois do better rather than Chloe bombs & fails for the single fact that there are STILL tons of other candidates Kahn can choose that are more motivated, better educated, more experienced and who may very well dot their i and cross their t when it comes to ethics. Chloe can turn into a green monkey for life but Lois will STILL have competition that has gone through a lot of the hoops Kahn will probably demand.

I feel kind of strange posting because I've read everyone else's work and don't know if this will hold up to the level that has been established here...

Radio, is it absolutely necessary for Chloe to have some kind of downfall or, IMO on reading your post, comeuppance, in order for SV!Lois to become the canonical LOIS LANE. You dislike the character Chloe based on your post throughout the Smallville, if I'm wrong on this please correct me and no offense intended, and I understand how anything she does or says would only cause you to further become entrenched in that view but I can't see the destruction and ruination of Chloe Sullivan would make SV!Lois get on the path to achieving canonical status. I realize I just repeated myself twice, I'm very nervous about posting--don't want to come off looking stupid, I would just like to understand your reasoning on this matter.

I like Chloe as Chloe, I don't want her to be ChLois because she is the only character IMO that the writers have created that is fully rounded. She can achieve great things as herself, I look forward to her first appearance in the comics because she adds another dimension to the Superman mythos, a normal person who has feet of clay, i.e. ethically challenged at times, but still attempts to do what's right in spite of it.

I don't think Chloe's downfall is necessary for the development of Lois, no. But I rather think it would be the best way to eventually stage the characters in such a way that it gives them all a pivotal role in the mythos. Chloe, as is, runs the risk of either becoming irrelevant/redundant (Does the mythos need *two* girl reporters? Really now?), or overshadowing the development of other characters with her tragic Mary Sue death. I'd prefer for her to have a purpose that doesn't unnecessarily elevate her *or* make her a completely pointless diversion of a character. Of course, I also have issues with Chloe's behavior and would find her downfall more interesting and in character, as well as providing an interesting counterpoint to Lois (Clark will have Lex, Lois can have Chloe).

I agree that when Lois becomes a DP reporter Chloe will not and should not have a continuing role in the story, but I don't agree that it necessarily follows that Chloe must therefore fail and turn Evol (which is what I think your proposed storyline does with her. To ally herself with Lionel AGAIN after everything that's happened would not be merely morally bankrupt, but stupid as well.) I think there are plenty of ways for her to leave the story gracefully and with honor intact once (or before) Lois grows enough to take her place at the DP. I don't feel that the storyline demands her failure in order to be properly climactic, or whatever. Then again, I like her character, so obviously I'm prejudiced in her favor. If you dislike her character, you feel the opposite.

In any case, I think that by the time Lois assumes the position of DP reporter the series will be long over. Perhaps they will simply leave both women's fate unresolved...both of them working at the DP at the end of the series, and levaing it up to the viewer to decide what the hell happened afterwards. Unfortunately, I believe that instead they are saving Chloe for something especially nasty.

I think Smallville should do it's own thing and not try to cram and piece everything together at the last second to fit with Superman canon.

Also,

I think an announcement for season 6 is imminent and a done deal. I wouldn't be suprised if it got renewed for a season 6 and 7 as long as Tom Welling is okay with it.

After all Smallville is doing extremley well in the MOST LUCRATIVE NIGHT IN ALL OF TELEVISION.

Where filthy rich movie studios throw large sums of cash to television networks so they can show commercials for their bad movies.

Like, oh I don't know...The Fog, and CBTD2? Something tells me TW will be A OK with it.

I fear that AlMiles will start flailing again at the prospect of having to continue the story for another two years, and that subsequently, they'll start throwing out even more ludicrous plot monkeys because they'll feel as if they've run out of ideas.

Al: I know! Clark will finally pursue his goal of becoming a professional mud wrestler, only to realize that his powers might hurt his fellow competitors.

Miles: Yes! We'll title the episode "Smackdown," and he can learn his lessons from a super-strong, meteor-infected wrestler who uses his superpowers to crush the competition!

Al: Okay Miles we really need to write this season 7 episode.

Miles: Right.

Al: Okay.

(10 hours later)

Al: Maybye this season 7 thing was a mistake.

Miles: Screw it, let's just kill of Chloe. Thats enough material for a whole episode right?

Al: And then after that episode Lana and Clark feel so sad they go to the circus to cheer up!!!

Miles: Brilliant! And once they arrive they meet a band of krypto freak clowns!

Hm. This talk of clowns has me picturing Lex in the Lon Chaney role from the film He Who Gets Slapped. Had he decided to just run away from his monumental frustrations and join the circus...

Crap. You so know TPTB are reading this thread, thinking "Genius! KryptoFreak Circus! Clark wrestles lions, Lana suddenly discovers she has mad trapeze skillz, and Lois wears a jungle girl bikini!"

I think the main problem is going to be with the Lex evil-O-meter.

A post by Booberella reminded me of this thread, so I went back a few pages to read some of my old predictions. I think I did pretty well. I don't know how I feel about that.

November

"Speculation: Lex loses the election. (I don't think Jonathan will win, either. I'll speculate that someone wins on a write-in vote, maybe even Jennings even though he withdrew.) Here's why I think Lex may lose: This season's favorite game is Kick The Lex.[snip] Soon, even the voters will give him a symbolic kick to the nuts. I think they're setting him up to be oh so very alone so that he clings even more tightly to Lana as his One Last Hope."

I got this one mostly right. Jonathan did win, but didn't end up senator because his cheeseheart exploded, and I'm not sure if they're going to go with the "clings to Lana" or the "uses Lana" approach, but she is the only one in his life anymore.

"Then Jonathan can die and Lionel would be there to comfort Martha."

Bingo!

July

This was more wishful thinking about what would make Lexana tolerable: "If she got close to Lex of her own free will, Clark could be disappointed in her and realize she'll just go to whatever guy pays attention to her. But I won't hold my breath. More likely, Clark would see her as the poor widdle victim and Lex as the big bad wolf."

I'm still not holding my breath.

"I highly, highly doubt they'll ever "taint" their princess by having her know the ways of the flesh."

I was dead wrong about that one. I completely underestimated their willingness to make Clark look like the 100% guilty party in the death of Clana.

"Depending on how evil and/or pathetic they make [Lex], I can see them having him blackmail [Lana]. If she's not with him, he'll expose what she did to Mama Teague."

Well, I was right and wrong. They introduced blackmailing but seem to have dropped it.

Oh my god, you were wrong, but I wish you were right: Now I have this vision that all of season Six is going to focus on how Lana "redeems her purity" after beeing "tainted" by Lex. (Though, I wouldn't mind seeing some of the tainting. Ahem. ...What? I can't want to see Lex shirtless again without supporting the Lexana?) Oh God.

Lanaville 6: The re-hymening.

It could be a Nip/Tuck crossover. I'd actually like to see Christian come around and fuck with Lana for a bit. He'd leave her completely emotionally broken, because Christian likes to make sure he leaves people even more psychologically fucked than he is. Then he could criticize Lois's boob job.

And then at the 11th hour we'd learn that Christian's actually an evil, gold-digging meteor mutant who was brought back from the dead and gives off major incest-y vibes with his fur-clad mommy.

The Kryptonite made me do it!

I know there's been a lot of speculation that Jor-El is controlling Lionel in some way, but has any thought ever been given to perhaps it being Zod? I'm not sure how it would be possible, but it would definitely be something no one else is expecting.



For some reason, this comment mde me think that they might do an episode featuring Bizzaro next season. That certainly would help TW expand his acting chops.