[SV] Tailisman

[serafina20]

Why? Why, why, why? If it was just that Clark was an asshole, I'd be fine, but he's such a stupid, unreasonable asshole that I just can't buy it. It's like the whole Chloe thing last year: I think I get what they're trying to do, but it's such a stupid, lazy, dumbass way to get to it, I can't get angry/frustrated with the *character* because I'm too busy trying to figure out what the hell they're doing with the writing.

My problem is, at this point, I don't buy that Clark is this bad of a liar. Not after his summer in Metropolis. People learn and grow and get better at things they do all the time, not worse. Clark is getting *worse* as a liar. There is no fucking reason to lie to Lex in the office, not when Lex was the biggest help in securing the caves. Yes, he lost them, but I'm pretty sure that Clark's memory goes back further than a few months. And his greeting pissed me off, too. Why on earth would he have thought Lex trashed the office. Does he even know about Lex trashing Helen's office, because that's the *only* reason I'd understand that question. The only time Lex has trashed anything is his own office, and *he had a reason*. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I don't understand the animosity towards Lex and the lack of anything but caution towards Lionel. Yes, I get that Clark would lash out at Lex because of the deep feelings they'd shared before (friendship or love), but what I don't get is *why*. Last week, I'd interpreted Clark's anger at the last scene as lashing out at Lex because Clark was violated. Yes, ultimately it was Clark's fault, but I can understand where he'd feel it was Lex's because Clark had felt everything he'd done was for Lex's benefit. "If Lex hadn't gone to Garner, I never would have gone to Lionel, and I'd never been hurt." I didn't agree, I didn't like it, I was angry at Clark, but I understood it.

I want to see the character change and grow. I want him not to be angry at Lex and saying stupid things. I want to see a scene between the two of them I can make sense of. Instead, I get more and more frustrated by writers vainly plugging towards a Rift that I understand must happen, but in a way that defies my comprehension.

What is up with John Glover's cheek? I mean, how long between episodes? I'm worried that it's not healing very well. Is he okay?

The pronunciation of "Ziget" changed. I'm pretty sure Kyla pronounced "Zi-get" like it's spelled. I guess they couldn't get her to pronounce it correctly.

Overall, I liked the episode. Lionel and Clark are always a joy to watch together. Lex and Lionel, ditto. John Schneider needed a better director, because his line delivery was just ... over the top or something (yes, I know he directed this episode). I'm enjoying the whole Naman/Ziget storyline, especially Lex's revelations at the end (I think someone read your theory rosenho.

Overall, I guess I don't have too much to say right now. I thought the main plot was strong and interesting. I always enjoy seeing Clark in pain, although I wish Martha could be a little stronger during moments of crisis. I'm still intrigued by Jonathan and Jor-El's bargain and what's going on with him.

I'm less intrigued by Lana and her Paris storyline. I just want her to go. I could feel her and Lex striving vainly for sexual tension during their scenes, but petering out at brother/sister. And what the hell was going on at Lex's? Was he having a party or something?

Pete's storyline bothered me until the end. His pissiness with Chloe was, in retrospect, understandable, but still bugged. I loved her expression at the beginning when he was rushing off. It looked like she was thinking, "Wait. Pete has a plot this week?"

End scene with Clark and Lex was wonderful. Beautifully acted by both my boys, not a jot of asshattiness or stupidity, and very lovely echoes of the future. I think it's becoming obvious that Lex will know Clark is Superman, but he will always read the legend by his interpretation. And he will do his best to make sure the world is safe, only do it wrong and get caught up in his own self-importance. Or, something more will happen to Lex, either his mutation will get to him somehow, or the ECT, or the sessions with Dr. Garner, or something unforeseen (Lionel or Dr. Swann's influence) and Lex will jump off the deep end. Go too far, *something*. I'm not sure, but as long as the writers take us along a recognizable course (because I firmly believe we could have gotten to a lot of these points without Clark behaving like a total ass), I'll be engaged. Even though I have beachfront property in Egypt.

Comments

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

I get more and more frustrated by writers vainly plugging towards a Rift that I understand must happen, but in a way that defies my comprehension.

WORD.

Or, something more will happen to Lex, . . .
My own theory is still that Lex is the comics!canonical Lex Luthor II. Lex (read: Lionel) cloned himself and, well, scooped the brain out of the clone and put his own brain in the skull. I think that's going to be Lex's destiny.

That would also explain why Clark's telling such awful lies to Lex. If he gets in the habit of telling Lex the truth, when Lex is no longer Lex, but Lionel, Lionel'll find out in minutes that Clark and Superman are one and the same, and Clark's days'd be numbered from then on.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

My own theory is still that Lex is the comics!canonical Lex Luthor II. Lex (read: Lionel) cloned himself and, well, scooped the brain out of the clone and put his own brain in the skull. I think that's going to be Lex's destiny.

If it is, I'd hate the show forever because it's such a waste of everything. I much prefer the way they seem to be going now, where Lex is so certain he's the hero of the story, that it's his sacred duty to oppose Superman to keep Supes from taking over the world, that he is blindsided and can't see his actions as anything but noble, no matter what the consquences are. And I think it's much more in Lex's character, because, since teh very beginning, we've been shown a man who desperately wants to do good, who will do anything to protect the people he loves, but just can't get it right becuase of fate or bad luck or whatever.

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

since teh very beginning, we've been shown a man who desperately wants to do good, who will do anything to protect the people he loves,

Which is why I believe that they cannot intend to keep Lex as Lex.

Here is the Lex Luthor page on the Batman Superman Animated Series page. The only difference between comics Lex and TAS Lex is the bit about their relationship to Superman.

In comics canon, Lex believes that Superman makes the people of Earth weaker by "taking care of them" (people don't feel the need to be careful on high places, because if they fall, all they have to do is shout for Superman and he'll rescue them, etc.) and that he draws unreasonable danger toward Earth in general and Metropolis in particular by his mere presence.

But aside from that, he is a villain. He kills, bribes, whatever it takes to get what *he* wants without regard for the consequences.

And even within that, he's a villain. He kidnapped and tortured Lana Lang because he felt that she knew something about Superman. Not the kind of thing someone who wants to do the right thing would do, unless he's nuts. And blaming his villainy on mental illness would definitely be worse imho than the body-switch thing.

I agree that the "protecting Earth from alien invaders" angle is fascinating, but they introduced the concept of the series with a sentence about how we know what happens once Clark gets to Metropolis. So they have to be heading towards some standard interpretation of the Superman/Luthor conflict.

If the suits at Time Warner have given them carte blanche to make up their own interpretation, why make *Lex* Clark's enemy at all? Why not Chloe? Or Lana? Or Pete? Those'd all be more reasonable results in my view.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

I still don't see it. The series is about the becoming of Clark and Lex. We're only in third season. Lex is more and more seeing himself as a hero with a destiny, but he's also seeing himself with a duty towards mankind. I think that, like most people who believe their destiny is to save the world, dispite his best intentions, he's going to start justfying actions he knows aren't ethical/moral/whatever because of the possible ends. He'll become wrapped up in his own idea of what the world should be that he won't be able to see the damage he's done until too late. Some of it will be against Superman, but I think most of what he'll do will be to prove to the world he's not Lionel and, in the process, not become Lionel, but bring the same kind of results, only on a world-wide scale.

If the suits at Time Warner have given them carte blanche to make up their own interpretation, why make *Lex* Clark's enemy at all? Why not Chloe? Or Lana? Or Pete? Those'd all be more reasonable results in my view.

Because they're still writing the story of Clark Kent and his arch-nemisis Lex Luthor. And they might not be enemies in the traditional sense but, again, the balance between light and dark. The world needs a balanace and, let's face it, Lex is the only one to bring it. Not Lionel, becuase Lionel can't see goodness. Lex can, so it has to be him.

[aelora.livejournal.com]

Yes to everything you said regarding Clark. People take my reactions to him as hate, but it isn't. I just have so many issues regarding the writing of the character this season. It's like he is regressing or something. I keep expecting him to grow but he seems more irrational and childish than he EVER did in season one. I just don't get it. The lies are simply becoming atrocious because they are so unbelievable. I mean, there is NO WAY Clark could actually believe Lex is falling for them!

And what the hell was going on at Lex's? Was he having a party or something?

It was supposed to be a birthday party for Clark that Lana and Chloe were throwing at Lex's place. Apparently it was all cut out for the Pete storyline - at least, that is all I can figure. Because there are plenty of confirmations from people who visited the set when they were filming the scenes.

[serafina20.livejournal.com]

People take my reactions to him as hate, but it isn't. I just have so many issues regarding the writing of the character this season.

All I can say, that's not how it comes across. Anything I've ever read by you on this subject--and I don't read your journal anymore partly because of this--has been nothing but what an ass Clark is, and how nothing he ever does is right, and what a bad person he is, etc. There hasn't been any commentary on how unbelievable the characerization is, or acknowledgements of where Clark might be coming from, or anything. I get your argument of why you don't like him. I don't agree with it, and you're so ugly towards the character, I don't enjoy reading it. There are people who hate Clark's character who do fairly good meta on it because they talk about the writers and the arc, etc, but your entries were so full of anger and hate, I've never gotten the sense that you were frustrated with anyone but the *writers*. And I hate saying anything negative about Clark, even when I'm frustrated by the character, because I don't want it in my journal (which you didn't bring in this time).

I'm also not trying to tell you how to enjoy fandom or the show or whatever. It's your experince, etc., but that's why I've always felt you hate Clark and aren't just frustrated at the writers making choices you don't understand.

It was supposed to be a birthday party for Clark that Lana and Chloe were throwing at Lex's place.

Ah, okay. Thanks.