Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic A Question About Smallville

Actually, thinking back to first year, if they had gotten rid of Clark and Lana and just had the show be about Luthor and Cloe, I probably would have watched .

Actually, one of the best parts of the show, at least for the first 3-4 seasons, was Lex Luthor. I think Michael Rosenbaum played the best Lex Luthor ever, of all the actors that have played Superman's greatest foe. Of course he was helped by being on the show for so long; having 7 years really gives an actor time to flesh out the character.

But the really interesting thing was the in the early "Smallville" seasons, Lex was actually a good...or at least a neutral...guy. There was a definite subtext that he could go either way. The "SV" producers cleverly wrote in Lex's father Lionel Luthor and there was a pretty obvious contrast of him with Jonathan Kent. Lionel was domineering, manipulative, emotionally and mentally abusive, crafty, and a great character in his own right. (Played by the excellent John Glover.)

So throughout the early seasons, there is a sense that perhaps Lex can be redeemed. Perhaps the Kents can show him how parents should be. Perhaps Clark can be the good example that Lex never got. Perhaps Lex can be saved. The villain has a good side underneath - can Clark bring it out?

Of course, as we all know, Lex turns to evil. The unfortunate thing about "Smallville" was that the show-runners pretty much wasted the drama of the slow descent down to the dark side, and the long-awaited final Lex-Clark confrontation (at the end of Season Seven), instead of being an epic clash for the ages, was only lame. Frankly, I was really disappointed. Their big confrontation was a lame-ass waste of time. (Pardon my outburst. Just had to rant here.)

I feel like we are seeing two different Lois Lanes. I'm struggling to reconcile this description with the Lois I've watched. I guess different people can see the same character and come away with very different impressions. If this was how I thought of Lois, I wouldn't be watching the show.

As for Lex, I have to agree that Lex's battle between his dark and light sides was the best part of the show in the early years. Once he finally tilted bad, I thought a lot of the energy went out of the show.

Bob

totally off topic - but do men ever get labelled as 'skanky ho's? But this is on topic in a way - I'm wondering if Lois Lane's character was held up to behavioural standards by many viewres (but not Bob ) that no male characters on the show were?

ML wrote:
Totally agree - would have been an interesting dynamic.

c.

Erm...you did watch LNC, didn't you? I'm guessing you weren't terribly impressed with their S1 characterisation of Lois either.

LabRat

To keep it off topic and I really can't resist the cliche
No, they're called 'studs'.

Michael

Michael

sick jokes - gotta love 'em

c.

Uh.../shuffles feet/....you caught me in a bit of doublethink here, I'm afraid. Guess I'll have to re-examine my dislike!

I’ve watched “Smallville” since season 1 episode 1. I’ve generally enjoyed it, with the possible exception of a thing or two. The Clark/Lana thing wasn’t really an issue for me because 1) Lana was his first love, and 2) I knew it was temporary. I found and continue to find Chloe much more annoying and am looking forward to the actress’ contract being up at the end of this season. I like Allison Mack and wish her the best, but her character on the show has more than ran her course.

That said, I do agree with everyone that the show drew the Clark/Lana romance out waaaaay too long. I also think that in an effort to make Superman “identifiable” to the modern age they made more than a few missteps with the characters of both Lois and Clark in terms of their development. I also think that they sacrificed too much mythos for the sake of believability. I don’t care if glasses aren’t much of a disguise. Clark Kent wears glasses. Period.

All in all though I have enjoyed the ride and am looking forward to the season 10 that has been predicted. I also agree with Bob that the first half of season 8 and all of season 9 so far have been the best.

Am I the only Chloe fan here? I always thought she was the real Lois Lane character -- she was the tenacious reporter, she helped Clark, and then she knew his secret and was an even more valuable character. Her "cousin" Lois was not a welcome addition, in my book. I think Chloe ought to have been Clark's "true love," canon be damned. Not like the writers have much respect for canon in any other instance.

I've always enjoyed Oliver Queen, especially once he started lecturing Clark for being a slacker. His relationship with Chloe has been interesting, too, although never romantic. No, Oliver fell for Lois (from whom the truth of the Green Arrow was hidden; Clark helped fool her).

She had Clark figured out as the Blur in a recent episode (Wonder Twin powers, activate! No, really) but then they made sure to make a fool of her once again (Chloe did it, this time).

I really hate that. The whole "you can be honest with everyone except the person who's supposed to be your true love, whom you have to constantly lie to" meme just grates on me. At least in L&C, CK was hiding from *everyone* -- on Smallville it seems like everybody and their brother knows who Clark is and what he can do -- but Lois can never, ever be allowed to be smart enough to catch on.

And don't get me started on the "hey, maybe if we're nice to Zod he won't try to take over the Earth, after all" thing. :rolleyes:

I would be much happier if I could ignore Smallville <g> but my husband watches it, so I can't avoid seeing it sometimes... <sigh>

PJ

You know, Pam, I have to agree with you. In the early seasons, especially, Chloe was much more like the iconic Lois Lane than the character who carries that name on "Smallville" today.

She was tenacious, smart, observant, stubborn, and it was her goal to be a reporter for the Daily Planet.

I heard a internet rumor once that the creators of the show wanted to have all the classic "Superman" characters appear as their younger selves, but that they couldn't get the rights to LL. So in the early seasons of "Smallville" you have Clark (of course), Lex Luthor, Pete Ross, Lana Lang, and....Chloe Sullivan. Gee, could she be the missing Lois Lane?

It's only fair to say that I have absolutely no corroborating evidence for this internet rumor. And I've also heard that the creators needed to have a non-canonical character, where they wouldn't be forced into a pre-determined ending. (Not that the current "Smallville" writers bother with that anymore.)

Everyone knows that Clark Kent is going to end up as a mild-mannered reporter at the Daily Planet, and have an alternate identity as Superman, Earth's protector, strange visitor from another planet, etc. And we all know that Lex will grow up to be Superman's nemesis and greatest foe. So having a "non-canonical character" may have been a breath of fresh air for TPTB.

I'm still going to stick with my contention, though, that Chloe was meant to be the iconic Lois Lane.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Iolanthealias wrote:

I'm probably too dense to float in water here, but I don't know what TPTB is. Apart from that, however, did I get you correctly when I thought you were saying that "the breath of fresh air" of the Smallville show was that it, basically, got rid of Lois Lane and replaced her with a comparable female (in this case Chloe Sullivan)?

Wow. If getting rid of Lois Lane is the best way of injecting fresh air into the Superman mythos, then the superverse has been a particularly windy place at least since circa Super-Year 20 (that is, since circa 1958, circa twenty years after the creation of Superman in 1938). During the Silver Age (the fifties and sixties) there were a few "imaginary" ("Elseworld") stories where Lois died, and there were also "real" stories where Superman fell in love with other women. In the "real" Superverse of the fifties and sixties Superman often flirted with other women, primarily Wonder Woman and Lori Lemaris the Mermaid, and I vividly remember one story where Superman fell head over heels in love with a Jane Doe (she did have a name, but I don't remember it since she was as non-canonical as Chloe Sullivan), and he proposed to her and was about to marry her. Then she was struck down by a terminal disease, and Superman was grieving like he never grieved before. Why am I thinking of Mayson Drake?

(That's one reason why I hate Lois deathfics, because I know what Clark's "grief" is worth. If Lois dies Clark will be looking for other women in a jiffy, have no doubt about that.)

There were many other attempts to get rid of Lois Lane and pair Superman up with another woman. In the sixties and seventies Superman started flirting with Lana Lang. I remember an "imaginary" story where Superman was split in two, so that he could conveniently marry two women. One half of him married Lois Lane and was shipped off to Krypton. The other half of him married Lana Lang and stayed with her where we want him to be, on the Earth. The Smallville show is the most ambitious and long-lasting attempt ever to pair Clark Kent off with Lana Lang.

The Smallville show is also the second most ambitious attempt ever to get rid of Lois Lane, since she has been turned into such a non-central and non-special character, special only in that she must be lied to more than other characters of the show. The most ambitious attempt ever to get rid of Lois was the big Superman movies. I've told you more times than I care to remember that Superman shed his powers to make love to Lois in the movie Superman II, but then he changed his mind, got his powers back and zapped Lois's mind into oblivion by super-osculating her. In the sequel to that movie Lois was reduced to a very minor character, while Superman flirted with Lana Lang and had sex with another woman. Christopher Reeve, who played Superman in these movies, said in an interview that the "Lois problem" had been solved in "Superman II", and Lois should never be allowed to be a major player in any Superman sequel in the future. Talk about a breath of Lois-free fresh air!

And now Smallville has injected another breath of Lois-belittling air into the superverse. I'm just wondering why that breath smells like unbrushed teeth from forty years ago.

Ann

I do so want to comment, but I so need to go to bed. I will say briefly that I hated it when they made it physically impossible for Lana to be near Clark because she absorbed a huge amount of kryptonite. To me, that said, that Lana will always be Smallville Clark's love of his life but he'll take Lois as second best since Lana is now literally poison to him.

I think they drew out Lana's character wayyyy too long, but all in all, I like the show, but LnC is much superior.

TPTB_ The Powers That Be

What follows is my personal take and so I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that no one will agree with me.

But

I've always seen Lois Lane as a feminist icon - she's independent, smart, courageous. She's always been that.

But with the 1960's and later, when ordinary women were struggling for meaningful equality, she became a problem, I think, for the men who controlled the Superman franchise. She was just "a little too independent " - in the words of L & C's Lex Luthor. She was a threat.

So her character was demoted, to "one of several of Superman's women". As well, I think the so called sexual revolution played a part - that was the era of James Bond etc - and strong female characters were largely missining in American films, replaced by women who lingered in the background, had sex with the hero and that was about it. we never got the feeling the male protagonist cared for them - they were disposable and compliant.

So how could Superman be cool if he was a one-woman man? I think the narrative at that time reflected an attempt to "put women in their place" and in that way was reflective of the RL culture dynamic in North America.

Smallville may be a bit different. I've also read that story that they couldn't get rights to Lois Lane. Still, they at least recognised that they needed a female character that was smart, etc. But, really I think they wanted a teen angst show - think of all the ones that had been so successful. So that meant developing the Lana Clark scenario way beyond what it ever was in the comics or elsewhere. But it also meant other things too - modifying Clark Kent's character so that aside from his name he really was someone else, for example.

Now I like the character of Chloe - as ML said above, if they'd dumped Clark and Lana and developed a Chloe-Lex story line it would have been quite interesting.

So what to do with the character of Lois Lane when Smallville did get the okay? Have Clark realise that what an adult feels about a woman is not the same thing as what a 15 year old does? have Clark recognise that Lois is kinda intersting and well, Lana is not? Treat Lois as an equal character with issues of her own but also one who is bright and serious about journalism? Nope to all of these.

Smallville now may be moving more to portraying Lois Lane as a serious reporter, but the iconic realtionship?- Lois Lane right now appears to be little more than a woman who's handy - what Classicalla said.

It's intersting though, that the Superman franchise did ultimately return to the iconic Lois Lane-Clark Kent Superman relationship. And that now they even get that Lois Lane is an individual in her own right. (which is where, historically, they started with the character )

[btw, I know I've made some sweeping generalisations about American pop culture in the 60's etc. There were a few films that did break the pattern. (and a couple of TV shows too ) ]

c.

No, I think she said they would rather have gone with Lois Lane (although to the best of my knowledge, no version of Supes had Lois living in Smallville as a teenager), but couldn't get the rights to her. However, IMO, Chloe basically was Lois, just under a different name. Which set them up for a big problem, because when they brought in the "real" Lois later, her character niche was already filled, so they had to change her almost unrecognizably.

It's messed up.

And the Lana thing has driven me nuts for years. Was so glad to hear she was gone for good -- although the way they did it does amplify the "Lois as second best" meme.

PJ

I didn't know that word so I went and looked it up.

meme:

Cool! I learned a new word. Now I just need to find an opportunity to use it. Hmm... going out tonight. I'll have to look for a chance then.

ML

We'll have to agree to disagree about Chloe. Personally, the only thing Lois Lane-like that I ever saw about her was the occupation of reporting and even that disappeared three years ago. In the "Superboy" verse she actually reminded me more of Lana Lang and I often thought that the mistake the show runners made was in making Lana and Chloe two different people as well as not focusing on Clark's own journalistic interest. Indeed, "Smallville" has almost seemed to make Clark a reporter for no good reason at all because you never really saw him develop the interest.

I always thought that the show could have done better being bookended by voice overs of Clark reading his journal (even keeping a journal would have at least shown us an interest in writing on his part). As I understand it Chloe was created to be the "outsider" and "normal" person who could look at the goings on in Smallville from that perspective. I think the voice over would have accomplished the same plus more as we would have gotten insights from Clark and even patched plot holes by giving us information about little plot points they didn't have time to actually film.

Lana and Chloe could have been combined as a character (thus linking Lana back more to her original backstory) and Clark's introduction into journalism could have been his joining the school newspaper because he had a crush on her and developing a real interest from there. This would have given us the opportunity to see the two together more as well as a romantic pairing with some tension, but without as much angst. We could also have been shown why the pairing ultimately wouldn't have worked in a much better fashion than they ended up showing us.

Also, once Pete left and Chloe was shoe horned into the role of confidant her role changed even more to the point that she was the all-purpose Mary Sue-ish deus ex machina. Clark needed information and *boom* Chloe pulled out her magic computer and it was there. Clark needs to break into a place and *boom* there goes the magic laptop beating a billion dollar security system. I think that's what really started to wear out her welcome to me personally. And then her last season antics with the serial killer pretty much nailed the coffin shut as far as I was concerned. Sadly, I would have been much happier to see her killed off than the one they actually did. Especially the cheesy cop-out way it was done.

We'll throw mythos to the wind as needed and create all kinds of inconsistencies, but good golly we have to have the ages right. Yeah, right, TPTB, I'm buying that one the moment I pay off this bridge I just purchased in Brooklyn.

Wow - this has turned into a really interesting exploration of the Lois Lane character. As ever, I'm fascinated by the critical acumen of the FoLC posters!

Yes, that's what I meant to say, but it certainly didn't come out that way.

BTW, I ranted about Lois Lane to Bob in a private message and he sent back another well-reasoned and insightful analysis. I'm going to quote from his PM because it's what I've felt about "Lois Lane" in the "Smallville" universe:

Yes, Bob, that's true. They've trashed the backstory of Lois working hard to get to her position as the top reporter at the Daily Planet.

And this quote by CCMalo really set off some interesting thoughts:

A very good point.

I read a very interesting book about 10 years ago, called "Generations: A History of America's Future". The authors posited (and had a lot of evidence to support) the theory that America has generations, that is, cadres of people born in a particular time period, and that these generations act differently. (Sorry, that sounds stupid when I write it, but the book explains it much better.)

Right now most people in America belong to one of the following: the Greatest Generation (born 1900-1924, a declining population); the Silent Generation (born 1925-1943); the Baby Boomers (1943-1960); Generation X (1960-1980); the Millenial Generation (1980-2001); and whatever they'll call the next generation. Hardly anyone is left from the Lost Generation (1883? - 1900.)

Each generation belongs to one of four types (that was the author's theory) which tend to repeat in a cycle of 80-90 years. Each generational type is marked by the events which happened during its childhood and coming-of-age years - a Secular Crisis (ex: Great Depression/WWII, Civil War, Revolutionary War) or a Spiritual Awakening (for example, the Great Awakening, the Transcendentalist movement, the Summer of Love).

Superman, "born" in 1938, was created by Siegel and Shuster who grew to manhood during the Great Depression (a Secular Crisis). People of this generational type (say the authors) tend to be "let's all pull together to solve the crisis" and "we'll make new institutions". (E.g., win WWII, form the United Nations.)

Those who come of age during a Spiritual Awakening (e.g., the Baby Boomers, late 1960's-early 1970's) tend to question institutions, be individualistic, "do their own thing".

With regards to Lois: Feminism tends to wane during the years during and after a Secular Crisis - the society ethos is that "we're fighting for our survival and don't have time for people who question traditional roles." Feminism tends to wax during the years during and after a Spiritual Awakening (note the growth of the women's movement in the 1970's and 1980's.)

Superman, "born" in 1938, has had to deal with 70 years of American society and the changing of the generations. It's no wonder that the conception and portrayal of Lois Lane have changed over that time too.

I think the generational type thing is also illustrated by the differences in "Star Trek". (Just go with me on this.)

In ST: The Original Series, (promulgated by Lost Generation and Greatest Generation producers and writers) the baddies were the Klingons (Russia) and the Romulans (China). (The Federation, of course, was the USA.) The drama was the conflict between the different star empires, and the big scary thing would be an interstellar war.

In ST: The Next Generation (produced and written by Silent Generation and Baby Boomers), the Big Bad are the Borg. Their motto: "Do not resist. You will be assimilated." The big scary thing here - loss of individuality.

As ever, I've gotten way off-topic on this. It started as an expression of my disappointment in the "Lois Lane" character on "Smallville". The way the Lois character is portrayed depends heavily on the generational experience of her writer, and on American society's culture and expectations at that particular time in history.

I'll end by saying that the Lois Lane on "LnC" is my favorite Lois ever. She worked for her position, she earned it, she deserves her Kerth Awards. Plus, Teri Hatcher portrays her so excellently.

I have to disagree here. If anything, of all of the reporters on the show Lois is the only one in my opinion that has been shown even somewhat realistically. And I also think that her success has been much more the result of hard work and dedication than luck.

Clark has certainly not been shown doing really anything journalistically until he entered The Daily Planet. In fact, “Smallville” went out of its way to reference his efforts as “copying the lunch menu” and Clark himself commented once that he had no time for reporting in favor of his efforts on the football team.

Chloe was almost the polar opposite. She was the uber-reporter, but again we saw no real reason for this or her success. In season 1 episode 1 she is introduced as the editor of the school newspaper while still a freshman. Now, according to show canon The Torch has been in continuous publication since at least the time when Lana’s parents went there, yet there is no explanation as to how Chloe became editor or why there are only 3 freshmen working there. All we know is that she is the uber-reporter and she is in charge. Her first column at the Daily Planet is given to her not because she earned it, but rather as a payoff from Lionel Luthor for betraying Clark. When she comes back to the Planet later on she is realistically rebuffed by editor Kahn only to hired back by episode’s end for a story that Clark gave her. Thereafter Chloe is returned to her role as deus ex machina and we never really see her writing any stories at all (and when she does it’s usually from information Clark gave her). One of the few (if not the only) times we see her actually going outside the confines of the building to investigate a story it’s Lois who is pushed to go undercover while Chloe stays in the back.

I’m not trying to bash Chloe because the simple fact is that her role on the show was different thus TPTB saw no real reason to actually show us any reason for her position or skills. She was there for plot exposition so for the story’s sake she simple “was what she was”. If she needed to be able to hack they made it so she could hack, etc.

Now, let’s look at Lois. “Smallville” is a story of beginnings and journeys so first of all we have to ask ourselves why Lois should be different in the context of the show? Also, as others above mentioned Chloe already had the role of “reporter” so obviously something different would have to be done with Lois anyway. Since Clark hadn’t set out to be a hero and Lex hadn’t set out to be a villain why shouldn’t they also show Lois to not set out to be a reporter?

Now, I’m not going to defend every move TPTB made with the character because there is much to disagree with and several things I flat out hated, but I’ll give the devil his due for some things even if I didn’t entirely like the way they were played out.

In terms of skill I think it should be noted from the outset that Lois is obviously a gifted writer. When she wrote the article for The Torch in the episode “Facade” she was referenced as being a gifted writer who actually got fan mail. This wasn’t a one shot compliment either as a few years later Grant at the Daily Planet also referenced her skill with prose.

While I wasn’t thrilled that Lois entered reporting through The Inquisitor I do have to admit that it is more believable to eventually land a job as reporter with a major newspaper like the Daily Planet with at least some real world experience at a real newspaper (not to mention a resume that included articles that garnered nation attention) as opposed to getting there with the only thing on your resume being editor of a high school newspaper and a column that the editor herself judged as “juvenile pabulum” as well as the acknowledged fact that said column was gained through unethical means. Bob Woodward himself was let go from the Washington Post after only a few months because of his inexperience and worked at a lesser newspaper for a year where he was able to gain the experience and be good enough to be rehired at the Post.

Also in terms of skill, there is the skill with investigating. Once Lois was introduced into reporting one of the things that TPTB did try to do (Stephen DeKnight referenced this in an interview) was differentiate her style of investigating (which was more in line with the traditional style of “Lois Lane”) from that of Chloe who did most of her investigating by computer. Lois was often shown going out into the field and going under cover and cultivating “sources”. During her time at the Inquisitor we saw her getting her lumps, but we also saw her writing stories that gained national attention beyond just The Inquisitor. More than once she arrived at the same end point of a story as Clark without the benefit of his “special” abilities and inside knowledge of the situation.

In fact, there were several times she was shown to be able to make logical connections between events that escaped the other members of the cast. She correctly identified the location of the underground cage fights in “Combat”, she was able to identify code as map coordinates (the episode name escapes me for the moment), and she recognized the connection between Lana’s cigarette case and her not smoking in the episode “Noir”. These are all things that are more skill and intelligence than “luck”.

This is my own personal opinion, but I think that often people tend to forget that while Lois didn’t start out at age 4 wanting to be a reporter she is one now and has actually worked in the field for a few years now and did so while facing deadlines, bureaucracy, and real world reporting struggles. When she writes a list of “Top Ten Rules of Reporting” I can actually buy it even if she has only been doing it for 3 years. That’s still 3 years longer than Clark.

Ann, good analysis. I don't really have anything to add except a bit of support:

When I took my intro to Sociology class, they talked about this very thing -- the term they used for the different generations was "cohort".

And, being married to a man 7 years older than me, I have to say I can see the differences. He was born at the tail end of the Boomers, whereas I'm Gen X.

PJ