|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:57 pm
Foetus In Fetu `Chloe Sullivan` Technically he isn't superman is he? He hasn't created any "codes" or "ethics" for himself at this point. That's what I mean: that's something they could, or should, be progressing towards. But what i am saying is that they were representing when they had him "kill" her. That He hasn't really applied any real status quo for himself to follow and that really he isn't iconic and doesn't stand for Truth, Justice, and the AMerican way. I mean eventually they might start progressing on that but really they are showing his imaturity in a way, he is still an adolesent and has not had as many life changing experiences for himself to give him codes...
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:10 am
`Chloe Sullivan` Foetus In Fetu `Chloe Sullivan` Technically he isn't superman is he? He hasn't created any "codes" or "ethics" for himself at this point. That's what I mean: that's something they could, or should, be progressing towards. But what i am saying is that they were representing when they had him "kill" her. That He hasn't really applied any real status quo for himself to follow and that really he isn't iconic and doesn't stand for Truth, Justice, and the AMerican way. I mean eventually they might start progressing on that but really they are showing his imaturity in a way, he is still an adolesent and has not had as many life changing experiences for himself to give him codes... I don't think that particular death was supposed to mean anything; it was just a convenient way of getting rid of her. If it had meant something he would have dwelt on it for at least a little while. EDIT: Isn't he around twenty now anyway? They're having characters like Oliver bang on about how moral he is; not having shown him progressing all that much in that arena and then doing that is a bit inconsistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:26 am
Ya, I don't think that's what it represents chloe...I don't see not killing her making Clark more of an Hero...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:54 am
Foetus In Fetu `Chloe Sullivan` Foetus In Fetu `Chloe Sullivan` Technically he isn't superman is he? He hasn't created any "codes" or "ethics" for himself at this point. That's what I mean: that's something they could, or should, be progressing towards. But what i am saying is that they were representing when they had him "kill" her. That He hasn't really applied any real status quo for himself to follow and that really he isn't iconic and doesn't stand for Truth, Justice, and the AMerican way. I mean eventually they might start progressing on that but really they are showing his imaturity in a way, he is still an adolesent and has not had as many life changing experiences for himself to give him codes... I don't think that particular death was supposed to mean anything; it was just a convenient way of getting rid of her. If it had meant something he would have dwelt on it for at least a little while. EDIT: Isn't he around twenty now anyway? They're having characters like Oliver bang on about how moral he is; not having shown him progressing all that much in that arena and then doing that is a bit inconsistent. Why are you flip flopping? first you are blaming Clark for the death and now you are saying it was nothing.... make up your mind already
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:35 pm
`Chloe Sullivan` Why are you flip flopping? first you are blaming Clark for the death and now you are saying it was nothing.... make up your mind already I'm saying the writers treat it as though it's nothing, when really killing somebody is something that should change a character or at least give them pause for thought. Instead the death was given no significance: you can't write it off as being deliberate on the part of the writers to show that Clark hasn't given himself that code of ethics yet; the writers did it because it was a convenient way of getting out of a situation they concocted without worrying about messy explanations. Character development should be more important than that, in my opinion, which was my original complaint. I'm actually being really consistent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 5:54 pm
She wasn't Human, she killed people, it was her nature, and she attacked him first...It should be
nothing..IN Buffy they kill Vampires everyday...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:23 pm
zach61092 She wasn't Human, she killed people, it was her nature, and she attacked him first...It should be nothing..IN Buffy they kill Vampires everyday... He isn't human, either. In the future, as Superman, he doesn't kill at all; if they're not going to start him out with that ethic, they should progress him towards it, and that means that killing people should have an effect on him. In Buffy it was slightly different. She wasn't already established as a character with that ethic, although they stressed a lot that she would never kill anything with a soul, human or otherwise. Vampires were fair game because, for the most part, they had no souls. If a character ever did kill something with a soul, it was A Big Deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 6:43 pm
Foetus In Fetu zach61092 She wasn't Human, she killed people, it was her nature, and she attacked him first...It should be nothing..IN Buffy they kill Vampires everyday... He isn't human, either. In the future, as Superman, he doesn't kill at all; if they're not going to start him out with that ethic, they should progress him towards it, and that means that killing people should have an effect on him. In Buffy it was slightly different. She wasn't already established as a character with that ethic, although they stressed a lot that she would never kill anything with a soul, human or otherwise. Vampires were fair game because, for the most part, they had no souls. If a character ever did kill something with a soul, it was A Big Deal. Well no, if they killed a human then it was a big deal. Buffy only killed demons since it was there nature to kill for the most part...It was the park rangers nature to kill..I kinda see what you are saying though...But I'm not really bothered by it. I think it's really trival.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:16 pm
Foetus In Fetu zach61092 She wasn't Human, she killed people, it was her nature, and she attacked him first...It should be nothing..IN Buffy they kill Vampires everyday... He isn't human, either. In the future, as Superman, he doesn't kill at all; if they're not going to start him out with that ethic, they should progress him towards it, and that means that killing people should have an effect on him. In Buffy it was slightly different. She wasn't already established as a character with that ethic, although they stressed a lot that she would never kill anything with a soul, human or otherwise. Vampires were fair game because, for the most part, they had no souls. If a character ever did kill something with a soul, it was A Big Deal.
ACtually he does kill. He kills Doomsday...and well Doomsday kills him as well but AT least SM comes back alive. Otherwise he saids anything that ISN"T human to the PZ which can be equally considered as killing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:32 pm
`Chloe Sullivan` ACtually he does kill. He kills Doomsday...and well Doomsday kills him as well but AT least SM comes back alive. Otherwise he saids anything that ISN"T human to the PZ which can be equally considered as killing them. I forgot about that. Still, it's a last resort and not something he undertakes lightly or on a regular basis. I've gotta say, I disagree that sending enemies to the Phantom Zone is equivalent to killing them. It's more like a very unpleasant life sentence. If it were the same as killing them, he might as well just kill them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 7:37 pm
I think i would rather DIE then be put into the PZ. The PZ is a fairly devestating place where i would not want to spend the rest of my life. Its a living hell and frankly i think that i would take death over going to the PZ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 11:57 pm
Well, some people (like Raya for example and me...) would take the PZ over dying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
crystalsmuse Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:29 am
crystalsmuse Well, some people (like Raya for example and me...) would take the PZ over dying. True but she had hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:38 am
Raya was more FORCED into the PZ by Jor-el, she had protection. Others on the other hand basically live in fear every single hour of existence. Raya didn't WANT to be there....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:49 pm
I just saw vegence...They do make a big deal about Clark killing humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
