Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Lois & Clark I want my $40 back. (My review so far of Season 4)

MR,

I’ve never got the impression that Clark was neutered in this season; on the contrary I remember several scenes were he just unilaterally make life altering decisions for both of them in a rather overbearing fashion.

His love also take a more possessive edge, which is something else I find appealing about this season. Before he meekly accepted Lois dangling over the jaws of death in the most spineless fashion. This isn’t so in S4. Here I get the impression that he is genuinely terrified about losing her and that it isn’t much he won’t do to keep her. (that would have been another theme I would have loved to have seen explored. That Clark would have tried to be more controlling with woman who almost got her self killed every other week, isn’t that farfetched IMO).
If anyone is neutered it’s Lois IMO and for those who love the bitchy, self-absorbed Lois(and she has more dramatic potential) I can understand if S4 is a disappointment.

Caroline;

In defence of the writers I thought they generally did a good job of the A-plots. Even though some themes became overused. Clark is almost omnipotent. Delivering a challenge to him which also give Lois a chance to shine most be incredible tough. (Notice how few fanfic writers that dare to try it.) It becomes harder still when Lois is in on the secret.
For comparison, I’ve never seen Smallville but I’ve been told there is Kryptonite in virtually every episode.
Or look at what the Hollywood scriptwriters did with Superman Returns. Not really keeping you at the edge of your seat with anticipation, did it? What I would I liked to see was Superman taking on real world issues like starvation or environmental concerns, issues that he just couldn’t flex his biceps and they would disappear. But that might have given the show a more political slant then the writers dared. So they stuck with him stopping jewel store robberies and kids from spraying graffiti. Uhumm.. And time travel and more mind control…

Well at least the writers did touch on the idea of Superman stopping a war (and getting a little politically involved) in Sex, Lies, and Videotape. I bet that's why you liked that one so well - there wasn't a chunk of green Kryptonite anywhere in it.

-- MR

(Oh, and I didn't mean you to think *I thought* he was neutered - I don't... but there are others who do... And while Lois isn't b**chy, she isn't complacent either. She is still pretty spunky.)

I don't think I'd've liked to see such plots, whether or not it was a matter of the writers daring to add politics or not.

I mean, I have ideas for how to "fix" issues like starvation, but those ideas I have involve basically acting like Robin Hood--taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I mean, certain countries have large surpluses of goods, and don't even think to share with those that don't.

But forcing them to share (either by taking it from them and redistributing it, or by coercing the people directly) takes away those peoples' free will to keep what they own/grew/paid for.

Bringing Superman into the mix would only be another version of coercion, in my opinion--kind of like in Superman IV, where he basically forced everyone to give up their nuclear arms. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be a good thing to get rid of the nuclear weapons everywhere, but taking them away from the countries that have them just because you can isn't right either.

I thought that comment was really interesting. To hit on those comparisons, I watched the first season of Smallville. The first couple of episodes I loved! I'm all about some good Kryptonite. And then it kept happening. And happening. And happening. I haven't watched the show since.

Superman Returns was quite the task. I still love it and I own it, but the shine comment really hit home for me. And it wasn't just Lois for me. I mean, obviously we saw a ton of Superman since it's Superman Returns and not...Jimmy Olsen Returns or Clark Kent Returns, but you'd think for a two and a half hour feature, we could see some of the other characters. Yes, we saw a lot of Lois with the take-over-the-continent plot, but did she really *shine?* The jury's still out for me. But in any case, it's a good thing for Warner Bros. that I like Superman and Kevin Spacey. :p

JD

I'm going to have to side with Arawn here (as usual) in theory. Yes it would be nice to see Superman tackle things that are important on a larger scale. Mainly because of the point that Darcy makes and how a situation like that has the potential to "humanize" this Superman figure (by making him take a political stance, be it direct or not). There is a resistance to this because of how he's meant to stand in for some general concept of "good."

(which is apparently not connected to the American way anymore *snicker* I bet that ruffled some feathers...)

Making that a tv show/movie about that could be problematic though for the same reason.

Clark Kent can have a political stance. Superman has to be impartial and as fair and not-heavy-handed as possible.

I'm not saying he (as in Clark/Superman as the whole person) SHOULDN'T take a political stance--just that he shouldn't force his own political stance on others.

I liked SLV also, simply because he wasn't forcing the two countries to see each other's views--he was just trying to get them to talk, and then was asked to mediate those talks.

And from what I understand from the episode, they'd specifically asked for Superman or no one, BECAUSE they'd always found him impartial and as trustworthy a being they'd ever met.

Imagine that there was man with Superman’s semidivine powers and general humanism, What would he do?
He has the power to singlehandlly change the political landscape of earth for the better. Innocent people are tortured to death everyday because he doesn’t act. Ching even made a remark over this:

And what was that?! Someone who dashes about like a... (searches for the word) ... hummingbird? Who goes from disaster to disaster with no principle other than to be of help? What kind of code is that? A worm eats dirt because that's all it knows how to do. Yes, I admit he has ability, but look at him! Skulking around, wearing glasses, when I know for a fact they are completely unnecessary! And his modest style of living and dress! For whom is he pretending? Why pretend at all?! He could rule this world if he wanted to, and enforce what he knew to be a better way, and yet he refuses to.

To Ching, Clark is moral coward. And if it was as Ching thought that Superman sits back and just let people abuse other people because he was afraid to exercise his powers I would agree.
To me though Superman have thought one step further. Yes in the short run he could create a better world by force, but in the long run this would likely result in greater misery. Very few people likes to be bullied even if it’s being forced to do something that is good for them. And who is he really to impose his values of the multitude of human cultures? I don’t know but it makes me think on the Iraqi war. Just because you have the power to overthrow dictators it’s not necessarily the best move.
So instead of forcing people to be good, he works within the framework of human law and tries to teach people to be good by example. And respecting others point of view even though you don’t have to would give you an incredible strong rhetorical ethos.

By fixing these problem I didn’t mean resource transference, I thought more about beating the drum(and if Superman was real everything he said would be prime time news), building houses drilling wells, distributing food, medicine, basically peace corps kind of work. That Superman would spend time stopping jewel robberies when thousands of children are starving to death each day seems ludicrous to me. To me everything he does or doesn’t do have a political significance, that’s why a conscientious guy like Clark/Superman couldn’t really help but having a well developed political point of view.

If this was how he was fleshed out he would be much more realistic IMO.

Dude! You guys are harshin' my buzz...

And to me, Ching is high-handed and overbearing. Leave playing god to the actual gods, I say. And just because Superman has the power to do all that he does doesn't make him a god.

That is EXACTLY the point I was trying to make.

It doesn't seem very ludicrous to me, when I remember that superheros are basically pumped-up police/rescue workers/vigilantes. No matter what their power, they all fit into one or two of those three categories, if not all three.

Superman spends his time on the occasional jewel robbery, yes--but that's usually just in Metropolis, his main area where he can hear that sort of minor thing. When he hears about a natural disaster, he goes to help, but he can't be everywhere at once.

He NEEDS to be Clark, and that's what Ching didn't get--Clark's need to at least act normal most of the time because of the things he sees every day. If he were to spend all his time rescuing people and acting like a one-man peace corps, when would he have time for the major disasters and his own sanity?

Uhm . . . Sue? I've never heard that expression . . . is it a good thing, or a bad thing? :p

DS,

And how would Superman know that he isn’t a god? The mythological Hercules seems to wield less power then Superman.

Which is what makes them comic book characters. Superman isn’t so much a masked superhero as a force of nature. Batman is just a human being bringing vigilante justice to his city, that is the limit of his purview. He couldn’t do much to alleviate famine in Ethiopia, but Superman could.

Therefore he should be where he can do the most good.

My impression is that he needs to be Clark to keep contact with his artificial humanity, something Ching saw no value in.

On the time when he is stopping hooligans from spraying graffiti or foiling break ins?


Sue,

Gotten hold on a urban dictionary I see hmm.. right, in what way are we bursting your bubble?

I think the main thing in this is how you view CK/Superman. Is he somewhat of a international resource, or he is more of a person with extraordinary abilities?

Also, if he did become actively involved in fighting hunger and disease in third world countries, how do you think that would affect him? He struggles with getting over disasters where he is unable to save a few. What do you think his reaction would be to viewing all the problems the world's less fortunate have?

Personally, I don't believe his caring heart would be able to stand an ongoing effort like that because he would likely wear himself out mentally trying to do all that he could.

Obviously, Even though it’s not really mine idea. Superman has gone through many facelifts through the years, and in the recent incarnation of the comics third world disasters have gotten more important then the average bank robbery, or so I understand.

That he would grin and bear it. To me that is greatness of the character, someone who lives in his own mind as much as in the physical reality. That was Lois realization in Ultrawoman, the hardest part of being Clark was all the things he couldn’t do, all the people he couldn’t help.
And it explains the importance Clark places on friends and family, with whom he sometimes can unload the world from his shoulders.

I just had a thought . . .

How do we know that Clark/Superman DOESN'T help the peace corps or other organizations having to do with helping third-world countries and such?

I mean, in season 4, we see Clark's two agendas, and the Superman one is pretty full. We know he attends neighborhood watch meetings, and gives all of the proceeds from the sales of Superman merchandise to charity--how do we know some of that isn't for the third world countries?

I think, in a way, that he DOES help famine and such--the Superman Foundation (is that just a fanon concept, or was it ever actually mentioned in L&C? I know he told his agent, Murray, to give all proceeds to charity, but was there ever an episode where the agency ever turned into a full-blown charity/foundation, even in a passing mention?) might provide the actual people to take care of everything, but it is, after all, the SUPERMAN Foundation, which means he could have had the idea to do that in the first place.

Ok, back on topic . . . I really liked all seasons, even season 4, even though it's my least favorite. In fact, from favorite to least favorite, my choice of seasons go 1, 2, 3, 4.

Yeah, me too. I love STGTTWNK. Almost as much as I love Soul Mates.

And I have now seen Lord of the Flies, which was the one and only L&C episode I had still not seen. My life is complete!

I think my New Year's resolution will be never, EVER to post under the influence of NyQuil.

I was in a strange, playful, drug-addled mood when I said that. I was just thinking that it was funny how people were debating the ethical ramifications of Superman helping others when he's just a fantasy. Curiously enough, when I'm sober the fantasy seems much more real.

To go back to the original premise of this topic - while I thoroughly enjoyed random moments in the fourth season, I have to agree with Caroline that the writing was uneven and contrived.

Mostly I just want to know - how the heck was he keeping Lois on the ceiling at the beginning of Brutal Youth? There's a little while there where she's laying on his arm, but that's it. He's not "holding" her there. Is it his magnetism that keeps her floating? Some kind of power transference when they made love? But then, if that's true, why is the blanket just laying there and not falling away? For that matter, why aren't her breasts more "down" than "sideways"? (Yes, make it logistically correct!)

The mind boggles.

Perhaps the fourth season writers were likewise high on cough syrup? (Or I still am...)

DS,
Oh I’m sure he does, it’s just a matter of priority with limited resources, helping starving children in Africa or teaching graffiti spraying hooligans the error of their ways. Decisions, decisions..

Sue, I was thinking it was quite funny how people who can spend months writing about said fantastical character would find it strange to discuss his ethical ramifications. :p
Anyway it’s a hobby of mine.
Despite reading a lot of comics in my youth Superman never really interested me. But I did like the L&C Byrne incarnation where he stopped being the alien robotic God masquerading as a human. Here there is actually a rational behind Clark’s goodness, a psychological vulnerability that counterbalances his powers. an uneasieness even fear about his birthright.
I enjoy fanfics and those episodes that managed to capture this duality. For me it’s a matter of verisimilitude, which to me is a very important criteria for what is good fiction.

That slipped quite a bit in the fourth season but it was always there. The perhaps most popular episode in the fanficdom ,TOGOM, has an A-Plot that gives the worst stuff in S4 a stiff competition.

Oh, I SO deserved that!

I always thought the plot of TOGOM was pretty lame, too (and William Devane as Al Capone still makes me giggle) but I was willing to overlook it since the B plot was deliciously full of promise. I can forgive a multitude of sins in the second season. Just not the fourth.

Slinking back into my hole now...

I think I'm one of the rare people who really enjoyed most of S4. What I like about S4 is that it does show a married Lois and Clark. I know for the majority of viewers it's the thrill of the chase that draws them in. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed that part immensely. Still, S4 was novel in that we watched the protagonists go through the whole relationship process and on into their lives together; they didn't stop actively loving each other even after the vows were over.

SM didn't throw me for a loop like it did some people--possibly because of what preceeded it--but I disliked the premise. We can't believe they were meant to be together unless there was some mystical soul bond beforehand? STGTTWNK--Mike was completely bizarre. It's a fantasy show, yes, but I'd have found it more rational to have Batman suddenly show up to marry them. Thematically speaking, I don't care if they suddenly broke out Wiccan pentagons or if they quoted scripture, it was all totally random for two people who never discussed religion before or after that episode.

What I disliked most about S4 was how, especially near the end, Lois sometimes became a totally different person than the one I thought I knew. While I do believe that marriage changes people, I don't believe it changes us that much. I despise MTP. It embarasses me how much that episode still ticks me off.

That being said, there were some great moments in that season. Lois and Clark on the floor while everyone yells "surprise" still makes me laugh. It may be one of my favourite moments in the whole series, right alongside her slamming the door in his face after the perfect date. I wish I owned it on DVD so I could go watch it right now!

Lol. I put two and two together when I heard you were sick, but I wasn't 100% sure I still cracked up though, mostly because it conjured a couple of old fratty memories, but that's a tale for another day...

Going back to the topic at hand, as someone who recently came back to the show (yes they lost me at the clone arc you can all shoot me now), it's tragic to read fanfic about say, the New Krypton arc being dealt with in a meaningful way and then seeing the real thing. Pretty much a downer, even after having known that from the get go.

Labrat's style of watching a given show for its elements is key for me as well as watching it for the potentials in either the A/B plots.

*is confused*

There is no episode that can be abbreviated MTP. Which episode is it that ticks you off, Capes?