Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Lois & Clark Who is the better Lois?

Hey guys,

I've been watching a lot of Smallville lately (mainly s8 &9 cause the rest are aweful) and I gotta say I absolutely love Erica Durance's Lois Lane. I'm starting to think I like her Lois better than Teri's Lois and I need your help to pull me back from the dark side Unless of course you agree with me. I want everyones arguments for why Teri's Lois is better, and let's see if we can do that without bagging SV too much Stay true to the character not the show.

here's a good youtube vid for inspiration, post more if you find them:
Lois Lane:Suddenly I See

I’ve been staring at your question all day and finally hope I have a reply worth posting.

I’ll preface this by mentioning that I watch Smallville. In fact, the only reason I watch Smallville is for Erica’s Lois. Therefore, I feel that I have at least a chance of a fair reply.

To be honest, I love both interpretations of Lois. However, I give the edge to Teri based on the depth she brings to the character. In LnC, Lois has the classic tough Lois Lane exterior, but the softer, more compassionate person is there underneath. When I think of Teri’s Lois, I see many layers built out of some hard life experiences. That is the person that Clark falls for and what makes her such a perfect life partner for him.

Erica brings a lot of good energy to the role. However, when I think about what I like in Lois, the soft side and the complexities play a big part. I just don't see that in Erica's Lois. So, as much as I like Erica, I give Teri the vote as the best Lois ever.

Bob

I won't be very helpful since I stopped watching Smallville somewhere along the 5th season.
But I actually liked Erica Durance's Lois because she was feisty, she fought for what she thought was right no matter the consequences, stood by the people she called her friends, and also had that way of finding trouble wherever she went.
Still, what I like about Erica's Lois is also what I like about Teri's Lois so... it's a tie.

I didn't watch much of Smallville, but the episodes with Lois that I did see were picturing her as sort of shallow. And as having a thing for (budding) superheroes.

Teri's Lois, on the other hand, has more of a personality that I can admire, so it's a clear vote for her.

Speaking of Loises, anyone a fan of the Margot Kidder whiney version? As you can guess, I'm not. I prefer the two mentioned above.

I know there was a previous thread that explored this a while back, but I'm not the guy to search those things out and link.

Since I'm a Lois Lane obsessed individual I have definite, strong, opinions about any one who plays Lois Lane.

So, in reverse order:

The worst Lois Lane, by far, was Margot Kidder. I don't mean to be cruel, but my Lois Lane's have to be attractive and I never thought Ms Kidder was particularly attractive. Also, she wasn't a very good actress. Her scenes were written to be somewhat manic, but she was too over the top most of the time. I never believed that she was a bright, determined, and resourceful reporter. Also, there was never any chemistry between Chris Reeves and Margot. They seemed more like bother and sister than a budding romantic couple.

Next up are the pair of actresses who played Lois Lane in the old Adventures of Superman series. Both suffered from the times they were in. The writers mainly used Lois as a damsel in distress. I've met Noel Neil and she is a sweet woman, but I have to give the slight nod to Phyliss Coates because her Lois was a bit more assertive and portrayed as more of a no nonsense person. I think Noel suffered from the writers turning the show more 'Kid friendly' after the first season.

Barely ahead of Noel and Phyliss is Kate Bosworth. She is cute, but I was annoyed that she chose to wear a bad wig. Not that she had to 'alter' her own hair to play the role, but couldn't the producers come up with a better looking wig than the one they used? The inclusion of a son really destroyed the characterization of Lois by the writers. You don't exactly see a strong, independant, career woman when she's constantly wet-nursing a whiney, annoying little brat. Also, the inclusion of the kid really pointed out that Kate was too young to play the role. There was no way that this woman was a seasoned reporter who'd had a relationship with Superman, lives through a five year hiatus, and is now a pulitzer prize winner with a kid who is supposed to be five and looks eight. It's possible that a different script with better writers might have made Ms. Bosworth more palatable, but they didn't.

Even though this is about the live action versions of Lois Lane, I have to use this spot to give credit to Dana Delaney and her portrayal of Lois Lane in the most recent animated Adventures of Superman. I still remember the first time I saw Ms. Delaney as a guest star on the original Magnum P.I. series. When I first saw her I thought that she'd make a great Lois Lane... and she does. In many respects, the animated series stayed the truest to all the characters of any of the versions seen in the last fifty years.

Now we come to Smallville. Not one of my favorite shows. I'm constantly annoyed by the creators of the show playing so fast and loose with the history of Superman. Early on they tried to do 'Dawson's Creek' with super powers and over time morphed the show into a live action cartoon. Forgetting how many characters were 'out of place', and how much didn't make much sense, you had to look for the moments among the mess. I will give Tom Welling credit for being physically worthy of the role, but the personality created for him by the writers has not been one that we could see growing into a Superman. Michael's Lex Luthor was well done, but also got too convoluted. The real jewel in the show has been Erica Durance's Lois. I saw Erica in person a few years back at a charity auction and she is definitely a very attractive young woman. She is one of the few actors on the show who can actually... act. I'm not fond of the back story they've given her. Her college career seems more fit for Lucy, than Lois. But the army brat, growing up with 'The General' as her father is much more in line with the comic book version than any other. (Currently in the comic books, General Lane makes Jason Trask look like a member of the Krytonian welcome wagon). As mentioned by others. Erica is able to bring across the Lois Lane who is feisty, confident, and able to take care of herself. Her physicality on the show is well done. The writers have continued to hold her character's development back, but we've seen traces of the emotion between her and Clark that we know will eventually blossom. All in all she does a good job as Lois. I just wish they'd give her a more 'professional' looking hairstyle. She's not a college student anymore.

That brings us to number one. No need for the drum roll, it's quite obvious that I choose Teri Hatcher's portrayal of Lois Lane as the best. Teri had the advantage of having four years as one of the leads, to really make the role hers. She was able to show us a Lois Lane who not only characterized all those traits that we knew and loved in Lois, but she showed us a Lois who evolved over time. The fact that the show was centered on the relationship between Lois and Clark allowed us to see much more of who Lois Lane was than any of the other shows. Teri has long been an under appreciated actress, who I thought could have had quite a succeful movie career if she hadn't chosen to walk away from it in order to have a kid. It's too bad, she deserved to have that success. Bottom line with her Lois... she made us believe. The chemistry between her and Dean was so real, and natural, that we bought into everything.

That's my list... which nobody really asked for.

Tank (who says, on Desperate Housewives he sees the character of Susan Meyer ably played by the actress Teri Hatcher, but on Lois and Clark he never saw Teri... only Lois Lane)

Tank, you put your finger on it! Also, a big problem with "Superman Returns" is that Superman (or Clark, whichever, it doesn't matter in this case) either has to break up a family (Lois + Richard White + Jason) or he's an absentee deadbeat Dad. There is bad writing in the movie - they set up a bad situation. Neal Bailey pointed this out in his excellent review of the movie at the Superman Homepage:

Sorry, kind of got off-topic there.

I totally agree with Tank. He detailed the reasons much better than I ever could. It's a fact. Teri Hatcher is the best Lois Lane ever.

I'm going to weigh in with an opposing viewpoint on the plot of Superman Returns. I didn't mind the unmarried parent plot. If you view it as a continuation of Superman II (since I never bothered to see the other sequels), Jor-El somehow forgot to supply condoms in the Fortress of Solitude, and when Superman got his powers back, he saw the sexual relationship with Lois as something that could never continue. (See "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"--I have no idea where you would find it, since it's been 30 years since I read it, but it's a great explanation of why they can't have sex. Just be glad LnC chose to disregard it.) Also, Superman's an alien, so how did he know he could be fertile with a human? He saw himself as once again alone, and he grasped at any possibility that he could find others like himself. In the meantime, Lois was still in love with him, but moved on when it looked like he was gone forever. A tragic and plausible love story (or at least plausible as anything you'd find in a Superman universe.)

My problem with Superman Returns was that the woman calling herself Lois Lane was NOT Lois Lane. Not only was Kate Bosworth too young, she was not a reporter who had fought to make it in a tough industry and a man's world. If the boys told her she couldn't play, she would have cried and gone home. The real Lois Lane would have kicked the boys where it hurt and grabbed the football instead.

Unlike Tank, I could see Lois as a mom. (Although I think the kid was miscast too.) Being a mom makes you softer in some areas but tougher in others. (See the Sarah Connor character in the Terminator Chronicles.) When I was in law enforcement I thought a lot about what would make me shoot someone (never had to find out, fortunately) but I never had any doubt that I could shoot someone if they threatened my kid. And I remember one particularly gross and disgusting incident where my co-workers were surprised that I was so calm. I told them that if they wanted someone who could handle gross and disgusting, all they had to do was find a new mom. (Diapers, anyone?)

Getting back to the question of this thread, I like Smallville's Lois better than I originally did, but Teri Hatcher is still my favorite Lois, or I wouldn't be so hooked on Lois & Clark.

Since I write both LnC AND SR -
my list of best Lois(es)
Teri Hatcher - although a trifle hyper, she was closest of all the actresses to the physical type of the comic books - slender, athletic, stacked. When she said she was into Tai-kwon-do you believed it.

Phyllis Coates - her Lois was a victim of her times, but she was a believable female journalist in a man's world (considering we're talking about a 50's kid show).

Erica Durance - Although I loath SV, her Lois is at least capable.

Noel Neill - again her Lois was a victim of her times, but she did a good job portraying the comic book staple of the more-or-less competent 'girl' whose brain went west when she fell for the hero.

Margot Kidder - The Margot fans I know are going to hurt me for this one. I hate her voice - it grates on me. Unfortunately the Movie Loises have been so universally badly written it's hard to say whether it was Margot's portrayal or the scripts that were at fault.

Kate Bosworth - WAY too young and dainty. By the time of SR, Lois should be 35 or so and hard as maple, single mom or not.

As someone on another board pointed out, the one good thing about Kate's performance is her ability to use body language to say one thing while her words say something else.

Iolanthealias quoted parts of Neil Bailey's review of Superman Returns, a review I thought was far from excellent. Instead, I thought that Bailey let loose his vitriolic hatred of Lois Lane in that review, while at the same time he mostly exonerated Superman's behaviour. Let's see what Neil Bailey said, in the parts that Iolanthealias quoted:

Lois has a bastard kid, and she is merciless and cruel.

But Lois's mercilessness and cruelty is not surprising, because that is what Lois is like, at least when it comes to certain versions of her.

Bailey makes it sound as if Lois seduced Superman in order to have his child. Moreover, he makes it sound as if Lois knew right from the start that Superman would abandon her, so that her child would grow up without a father. He makes it sound as if she had decided, even before she had sex with Superman, that she would have his child anyway, and damn the consequences. That is really not what it looked like in the movie where the lovemaking happened, in Superman II.

Besides, would it have been better if Lois had decided that she would not have a child without a father, when she discovered that she was pregnant? Would it have been better if she had had an abortion? Personally I believe that Neal Bailey would have poured more vitriolic hatred over Lois if she had aborted Superman's child. But since she decided to keep the child, she is a merciless and cruel woman who set out to have Superman's child, regardless of the consequences.

This is the fault that Bailey finds with Superman:

Superman is puritanical, so he should not have had sex with Lois. Well, I could tell you of at least two comic book stories where Superman did have sex with women he was not married to. I oculd tell you of a movie, Superman III, where Superman had free and wild sex with a woman he didn't even know (yes, he was under the influence of red kryptonite). I could tell you of another comic book story where Clark floated outside Lois's window and kissed Lori Lemaris the mermaid, even though he was engaged to Lois at that time - and mind you, he was not under the influence of anything when he behaved like that. Lois was really angry at Clark because of what he had done, and a lot of male readers were furious with Lois because she was angry and bitchy at Clark! Just because he had floated outside her window and kissed another woman!

So in my opinion, Superman hasn't always been puritanical. Neal Bailey, however, assumes that Superman always is puritanical, and therefore his behaviour when he had sex with Lois was out of character. But Bailey thinks that Lois can be seen as cruel and merciless, and therefore her behaviour when she was cruel and merciless (Bailey doesn't say how she was cruel and merciless) was in character for her.

Bailey goes on:

Yes, the kid has a father. Superman is his father.

What? Lois wants to talk to Superman when he returns after five years, after he made love to her. And the two of them get a little carried away and kiss each other. Personally I don't find it too surprising that Lois would want to ask Superman why he left. Particularly as he is the father of her child, although admittedly she didn't know that in the beginning of the movie.

Oh, she is behaving badly toward her fiancé. And is she behaving badly towards her son? Shouldn't he get to know his biological father? Particularly as he is going to discover, as he grows up, that he is not like his mother's fiancé?

Oh, wow! Superman's behaviour is reprehensible! And why is that? It can't be because he made a choice to do these things, because it is not in his character to do reprehensible things. No, he did them because Lois dragged him into doing them!!!

When Superman is doing something wrong it is not his fault. It is Lois's fault, because she made him do it. And it is not surprising that Lois made him do it, because she is merciless and cruel, and she made the conscious choice to wreak all this havoc.

I recently complained that Lois is sometimes portrayed as evil here on these boards, but Clark is basically never portrayed as evil. Lois can be shown to be evil incarnate, or at least to turn into it, but Calrk can not. The point I'm trying to make is not that I want Clark/Superman to be evil. I love it when he is good. I just hate it when Superman is acting cruelly and he gets off the hook completely with no one blaming him at all. Because it can't have been his fault. But Lois can be a woman without a heart or a conscience on whom you can dump all your hatred and all your blame.

God: Adam, why did you eat the apple?

Adam: The woman that you gave me to be with me, she made me do it. It wasn't my fault.

Ann

I've never really watched SV and haven't seen any or ED's portrayal of Lois, so I don't have much to say there. But I've really been enjoying reading everyone else's take on it. It's been an interesting thread and a lot of fun.

I just had to comment on this from Ann's post though, which I have to admit did make me smile. Especially in light of the context of your post, Ann.

So, when Superman kisses another woman while supposedly in a committed relationship with Lois, he's the villain. (And rightly so!). But when Lois kisses another man while supposedly in a committed relationship with her husband...it's perfectly natural that she would and she was simply unable to help herself. She just got carried away and no big deal.

Talking of double standards...

LabRat

Uh, I'm trying to figure out what film Neil Bailey was critiquing. In SR Lois kissed Superman once and he was unconscious at the time.

As for the portrayal of Lois...

In LnC we have the tradition of SoulMates - Lois and Clark SHOULD be together - it's a given (It's the name of the show.)

The Adventures of Superman (1950's) was pure kiddy comic book - Lois is gaga over the resident superhero and doesn't give much thought to her co-worker Clark except that he's a rival and an otherwise nice guy. Had George Reeves lived to take over more of the show's production, he may have allowed Lois to grow up a little - it's said he planned to emphasis Clark and the newspaper side more. But we'll never know.

But I doubt there was ever any thought that Superman should come clean with Lois or that Clark and Lois would ever be more than friendly rivals.

The Chris Reeve films tried to bring a more modern (80's) slant to the relationship. Depending which version of the reveal you go with for SMII, you can claim that Lois was a wide-eyed girl-fan or a conniving b*tch. Either way, it takes two to Tango. HE could have said no at any time. And the amnesia kiss thing shows that HE was a conniving SOB. (Date rape anyone?)

SR is (very loosely) a sequel to SMII. That they had unprotected sex is a given. That Lois doesn't doesn't remember that CK=S seems to be a given. That Lois had a child out of wedlock is a major plot line.

Is that Lois a cold conniving b*tch?

Well, we have a woman who may or may not know who the father of her child is, a fiance who may or may not know he isn't the father. She's a top Metro reporter - that's going to make her driven and a little callous to begin with - who is trying to do what's right. Is the fiance simply a sugar-daddy. Singer didn't intend him to be - all the descriptions of Richard White is that he was just like Superman only without the powers - Even Clark recognizes that.

So maybe in her grief for her loss of Superman, she fell for the first man who met her very high prerequisites for a man.

That doesn't make her a bad person - just a woman in a tough job in a tough place. Did she take advantage of Richard? Yes, especially in asking him to intercede with Perry on her behalf. But he could have (and probably should have) put his foot down the first time it happened.

Like I said, I don't know what movie Neil Bailey was reviewing.

LabRat said:

Well, Richard White was never Lois's husband, but you are right, of course, LabRat. Lois can't be blameless if she kisses Superman when she is in a committed relationship with Richard White.

My point is that the reaction to Kate Bosworth's Lois was absolutely extremely vitriolic, particularly on the homepage that Neal Bailey was managing. Bailey called Lois a b*tch and a feminazi. When have you seen a reviewer who wants to be taken seriously call Superman a bastard and a, well, a "S.O.B.-nazi"?

I'd like to say a few more things about the comic book arc where Clark kissed Lori Lemaris while he was floating outside Lois's window. In the beginning of that arc the Joker posioned Lois, and she became terribly sick and seemed to be dying. The Joker told Superman that the only way to save Lois was for him, Superman, to kill the Joker. The Joker said that his own existence had been tied to Lois's life in such a way that one of them had to die. Well, personally I don't see how such a thing could be possible, and Clark chose not to believe it. He didn't kill the Joker and Lois got better, but she was still extremely weak.

Clark then told Lois what the Joker had said, and he also told her that he himself prefered to take the risk that Lois would die rather than become a killer himself by murdering the Joker. I agree with his decision, but if he was going to tell Lois about this, you might think that he would want to spend extra time with Lois to reassure her of his love.

Instead his behaviour was the exact opposite. Lois was still weak and a little depressed after her poisoning and Clark's coldness to her, but instead of spending time with her Clark was busy with his Superman duties. He probably thought that Lois wasn't much fun to be with when she was sick and sad. When Clark unexpectedly walked into Lori Lemaris, he was delighted and asked Lori to stay with him. Or rather, he invited Lori to stay with Lois, in Lois's apartment.

Lori happily moved in with Lois, and then she made herself very much at home at Lois's place, to the point that Lois couldn't find her own clothes because Lori had taken them. At the same time Clark started more-or-less dating Lori, and he had basically no time for Lois at all. One night, when Lois looked out her window, she saw Clark and Lori floating outside, kissing in the moonshine.

In this story arc Lois became very angry at Clark, and droves of fanboys were absolutely furiouos at Lois. How could she ask that Clark should spend all his time with her? How dare she be angry at him? What a b*tch!

Now imagine that Lois had acted toward Clark the way Clark acted toward Lois in this story arc. Imagine that Clark had been poisoned and apparently dying, and imagine that Lois was told that she could only save Superman's life by killing one of his enemies. Imagine that Lois not only refused to kill the man in question, but she also told Clark that she would rather let him die than kill one of his enemies. Imagine, too, that she didn't spend much time at Superman's bedside while he was sick.

Imagine, too, that Lois pretty much ignored Clark while he was sick and weak, but instead she invited an old boyfriend to stay at Clark's place. Imagine that she was dating her old boyfriend while the boyfriend was staying with Clark. And imagine that one night Clark saw Lois and the boyfriend kiss each other right beneath his window.

Could Lois ever be forgiven for acting like this? Personally I don't think so. I think people would have felt a strong need to punish Lois for this behaviour. Personally I think the fans would have asked for a story where she was killed, or maybe one where she was turned into a demon. Very many fans would have branded Lois as irrevocably evil and beyond forgiveness. But when Clark acted like this, the fanboys were furious at Lois!

So, yes. I think very many Superman fans and maybe also some LnC fans are ready and willing to forgive Superman/Clark almost whatever he does and find reasons and excuses for his behaviour, while at the same time they would condemn Lois and have her burn in hell if she did the same things that are acceptable only when they are done by Clark.

Ann

I would like to point out, too, that Neal Bailey has officially declared that this comic book arc, the one where Clark kissed Lori outside Lois's window, is his favorite Superman story arc ever. Yes, because Superman has never been more heroic than he was here, according to Bailey. How so? It is because Clark was ready to sacrifice Lois rather than compromise his ethics, and therefore he has never been more admirable and heroic than here, according to Bailey.

(And if you're wondering who Neal Bailey is, he is one of the senior managers of DC Comics' official Superman homepage.)

Ann

Ann wrote:
What you outlined here, Ann, is essentially correct (except that the fruit is never called an "apple" in the Bible), but you didn't put in the part where God held Adam accountable for his own actions. I happen to agree that Superman's actions in the movie where he kisses Lois to make her forget that they'd been so very intimate with each other (never mind the idiotic plot point that "they couldn't be together") and then behaves as if nothing happened between them were wrong. Messing with someone's mind? Not cool, Supes, not cool!

But let's not blame Superman (or Clark) every time something goes wrong between them. Is he perfect? No. Is his every decision the right one? No. Is he always the only one being stupid?

If that were true, Lois should dump him and move on to someone who meets her high standards and who matches her in the high moral department. So no, Clark isn't the only one who makes mistakes.

One very good example is the freezing of Lois in "And The Answer Is." It was dumb for Superman to do it, but it was just as dumb for Lois to suggest it. They could have faked her being dead with makeup or just her being limp or even used a Resurrection pill to simulate her death (great job, BJ!) or tried a sneak attack. But no, Lois has to be so self-sacrificing! And Clark has to be so desperate that he'd try almost anything! This was one where the dumb was shared pretty equally.

But that's where the fun comes in! We can sit down and create situations where one or both of them goofs up and then make them (and the readers) sweat out the resolution! I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'm not here to punish Lois (or Clark) for anything. I'm just enthralled with the whole fanfic process and fascinated by the imaginations of all the wonderful writers who participate in this imaginary playpen. I have derived many hours of pleasure from these boards - and a few hours of empathic pain - and I hope I can keep coming back often.

Ann also wrote:

I get the feeling that you don't agree with Mr. Bailey here. But what were his options in this story? He could choose not to believe the Joker and risk Lois' life. Or he could believe the Joker and kill him. Would that have been a more palatable choice?

Maybe some authors would choose this path. Then, of course, our couple would have to deal with the shared guilt for Joker's death and the public blame Superman would endure for killing someone. That would certainly be a deep tale.

A third choice? Lois could kill him.

And wouldn't that generate some feedback.

I started to write a long (boring) exposition about the differences between comic book storylines and the kind we have gotten from the television series. But I decided not to.

Instead I just want to say a couple of things.

It's clear that the way we see the characters of Lois Lane and Clark Kent are heavily colored by which versions we most identify with. The media is the message. One must remember that even though in the Lois and Clark television series each character was considered on an equal footing, in the comic books Lois Lane has never been anything but a supporting character.

The Joker storyline really points this up. Lois is used to highlight a particular moral stance on the part of Superman. Her importance to him only made the 'hard choice' even harder. But the outcome was a forgone conclusion. Superman will not consciously choose to kill. The main problem I had with the storyline was not that Superman wouldn't kill the Joker, but that he just stood there and waited for whatever was going to happen, happen.

The Superman I believe in, no matter if he believed the Joker or not, would not have stopped trying to find a way to cure Lois. Whether it appeared hopeless or not, he would have tried right up the the final second.

Tank (who thinks this thread has strayed a bit off topic)

Terry and Tank, I don't object to Clark's decision not to kill the Joker. This is what I said about it:

I agree that Clark was right not to kill the Joker. What I disapprove of is that his treatment of Lois afterwards strongly suggested that his real reason for sparing the Joker's life was that he couldn't care less if Lois lived or died.

And that is also why I find it so remarkable that this is Neal Bailey's favorite story arc ever.

Ann

Hugely interesting discussion.

It occurs to me too, has always in fact, that Lois Lane became an icon for women because, when she was created, she represented what was called, at that time, an "emancipated" woman. She worked in what was then essentially a male dominated business (still is really, but less so) She was hardworking, bright, energetic etc. She often did what Clark Kent did, only without the superpowers <g> (with the very huge exception of the physical feats)

To put in corny terms - she was a role model for girls in a North American pop culture that at that time had very few.

How the comics depicted Lois Lane reflected the times in which they were written, as Tank has argued. And as he has pointed out, she didn't get to do her stuff nearly as much as the Clark kent did.

Mostly the Superman comics were written by guys, published by guys, for guys. In the last quarter of the 20th century, It appears that they became a bit of a forum for some backlash against the gains that women were making in the workplace and in legal and social rights. You can see this in how fanboys reacted to Lois's being upset with Clark in the scenario that Ann has described. Lois Lane was 'put in her place' by these guys.

So in that sense the TV show, L & C, was more egalitarian than the comics. It was a breath of fresh air

The wonderful and heartening thing about L & C (and which I believe Smallville has yet to acknowledge fully) is that a woman can be equal to a man - they aren't just sidekicks, moms, girlfriends and evil temptresses) and that Lois Lane is as heroic as Clark Kent (she just isn't 'suped-up' ) Sometimes she was the magician, and not always the magician's assistant.

So the narrative of Lois and Clark - that the two were heroic equals and therefore each other's natural mate (trying to avoid icky romance jargon here ) was something that was the stuff of myths. You sensed that the creators of the show not only 'got' what the character represented but also had a genuine affection for her.

Now there has been some evidence of this in the comics more recently I hope, and I think it was there back in Superman I & 11 (up until that paternalist, mean-spirited, totally evil ending that so betrayed the new spirit of the two films) I'm gathering though, that this Neil Bailey person is a bit of a throw-back: a misogynist who sees female characters essentially as plot devices or character revealing devices for the male hero.

Anyway, back to who is the best Lois - It's the narrative and the context in which writers develop that narrative that counts. Eric Durance may be a very good Lois, but her Lois Lane is limited by Smallville's reconning of the character so that she has become just one of the recharacterised Smallville Clark's collection of women. Nor has her character been portrayed particularly sympathetically by the show, until this season I gather. So her Lois Lane will always be limited by Smallville's characterisation, as will Wellings' Clark.

(Smallville is after all a teen angst show, modelled more on Buffy and deGrassi - I'm betting next season they'll add in musical bits a la Glee)

So, for me, how the show treats Lois Lane is significant in deciding which actress is the best Lois Lane. That said, I still think it's Teri Hatcher - she handled the range of emotions and types of scenarios so well - from the comic moments to the serious stuff.

anyway, my thoughts

c.

I don't watch Smallville, but I wandered into this thread because it has so many responses, and I do have to comment on one thing:

I will preface this by saying that I absolutely adore Teri, and I totally agree that as Lois, she made us believe -- but there is no guarantee she would have gone on to be a successful movie actress. And I wouldn't exactly say she walked away to have a child -- from what I can discern, she was pretty shocked to find out she was pregnant. I don't think she planned on being the first pregnant Bond girl, you know?

That aside, the thing is, the movies Teri was in before she got pregnant weren't exactly box-office successes. "Heaven's Prisoners" was widely panned. "Two Days In the Valley" was an independent film and didn't get much hype. And "Since You've Been Gone" is just terrible. I think it has aired more times on cable than its entire runtime in theaters.

Not everyone goes from Bond girl to Oscar winner. Just look at Denise Richards.

And furthermore, I think having her daughter has humanized Teri more and made her enjoy and appreciate the success she has found as Susan on "Desperate Housewives."

Teri's awards pre-motherhood: 0

Teri's awards post-motherhood: 3 (not counting ensemble awards)

First of all:
HILARIOUS! And most likely true. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised by anything they could do on that show anymore. I'm a fan and I've been watching for years, but seriously, the show gets more absurd every week.

As to the original question of who is the better Lois, I honestly love them both. Teri was, well, she just WAS Lois. Erica is fantastic. It's unfortunate that the writers of Smallville can't seem to decide what the show is about. All the characters suffer from this constant jumping around of plots from week to week. But even so, Erica's Lois keeps me watching (that and the fact that after investing this many years into the show, I kind of feel like I can't give up on it now).