|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:17 am
Many of you may hav heard my whole Chlois theory, you may think what you want, im not saying you have to believe me but here it goes:
- First:
Chloe was a character created by Al Gough and Miles Miller. Chloe was never in the Comics, though many of you would just find this silly to be brought up, consider this:
Gough and Miller were not trying to follow the ordinary Superman Legand. They we trying to create their own interpitation of how they thought Superman grew up and how all the events in his young adulthood would lead up to how he lived his life in Metropolis as "Superman".
- Second:
In the Comics Lois Lane was not even her real name, it was but a pen name to use in the Daily Planet, which she soon got a legal chanchange for it to be her rea name. So it never startd out as Lois Lane in the First place and if you recall in episode "Delete" season 3 CHloe Looses her job at the Daily Planet and uses the name "Lois Lane" for the release of her Last article to expose the going ons in the Summerholt Neorogical institute.
-Third:
Chloe gets a job as a reporter in the Daily Planet when she is young and had been working there for interships and had always wanted to be a journalist while the smallville Lois wanted to be a radio jockey. Gough and Miller now are probley trying to make it seem as though Lois is getting interestd in journalism, just to draw you away from the fact that chloe will most likely become Lois.
-Fourth:
Chloe gets caught up into the Fortress of Solitude, Lois Lane was the only Known Human to have ever visited the Fortress of Solitude.
-Fifth:
The reason Clark lost his powers in Arrival was so that he could save Chloe and get her to the Hospital, that happened in superman II when clark lost his powers so that he could be with lois.
-Sixth:
Producer Miles Millar confirmed at ComicCon 02 that Chloe's name "purposefully has a lot of L's in it."
The Name Chloe Sullivan Containes the Name :Lois Lane
C H L O E S U L L I V A N
which then leaves the letter C H U L V which could have simply been added in, or have some cronologically meaning i have not figured out yet.
- seventh
Even THough CHloe said that she would die before she would betray Clark, Lois would also risk her Life for Chloe's.
- eight
In the Comics Lois had a Father who was a Scientist, Not an army General. Chloe's father was a Scientist in the Luthorcorp Fertalizing plant.
- Ninth
we learned in season four that Chloe lost her virginity to a Jimmy Olson an intern at the Daily Planet. Well Since Jimmy Olson was an intern while Chloe was an intern, that means that the time when "Lois will work at the Daily Planet" Jimmy Olson will not be an Intern. But in the comics Jimmy was an intern WHILE LOIS WAS AT THE DAILY PLANEt.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:07 am
neutral I will believe it when I see it. It is just a theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 1:06 pm
Did you not read the first part of my post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:56 pm
Honestly, I thought you had something a LOT better than that.
Also, Lois Lane was always Lois Lane in the comics. Where you heard that she changed her name is obviously wrong.
Lionel's also been in the FoS... he must be Lois too! *Gasp* razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:30 pm
Well its obviously not it is it? Because i have not finished yet. Have you read all the comics anyways? because then you would know that Lionel WAS infact in the superboy comics. Pal Pete Ross #34 in febuary of 1947to be exact. and i never asked you for your opinion on it. I don't think you should criticize what i think. I never said you had to believe it anyways (at top of post). Plus how can you be so sure that chloe is not Lois? the Show is not over yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:03 pm
`Chloe Sullivan` Have you read all the comics anyways? Most, yes. `Chloe Sullivan` because then you would know that Lionel WAS infact in the superboy comics. Pal Pete Ross #34 in febuary of 1947to be exact. When the hell did I say anything about Lionel not being in the comics? Re-read my post, you obviously missed something. `Chloe Sullivan` and i never asked you for your opinion on it. You did when you posted it. This is a FORUM, for DISCUSSION and THOUGHTS and OPINIONS. `Chloe Sullivan` I don't think you should criticize what i think. Read last paragraph. `Chloe Sullivan` I never said you had to believe it anyways (at top of post). I don't, but I was simply pointing out obvious flaws in your "facts". Again, it's something you missed. `Chloe Sullivan` Plus how can you be so sure that chloe is not Lois? the Show is not over yet. How do you know that Lionel isn't really Lex? Simple. I could use your beliefs as you do, and make up my own fan-fic inspired theory on almost anything. "Lionel lost his son Lex in a lab experiment explosion. Heartbroken, he took his son's name and vowed revenge on all of Lex's previous friends and enemies alike."Sounds somewhat possible, so therefore it must be correct. Right? Since the show hasn't ended yet, you can't say it won't happen! Don't criticize it! rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:52 pm
I am just stating what I think, don't go all hostile on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:21 pm
rolleyes grow up adam(talking about your last paragraph). I was just posting this for other people read because they have been bugging me about it, and so i would not forget some of the things that i stated as evidence.
and sorry lana i was not trying to sound hostile....
Besides. like i said in the first part of my post, i never said yu had to believe it and that you are aloud to believe what you want so no need to get hostile on me *cough* adam *cough cough*. its what i believe and obviously you don't
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:52 pm
`Chloe Sullivan` rolleyes grow up adam(talking about your last paragraph). Hmm, considering my last paragraph sounds like the majority of your posts around here, maybe you should be taking your own advice. `Chloe Sullivan` I was just posting this for other people read because they have been bugging me about it, and so i would not forget some of the things that i stated as evidence. Therefore opening the door for DISCUSSION on the subject. I'm glad you understand that. `Chloe Sullivan` Besides. like i said in the first part of my post, i never said yu had to believe it and that you are aloud to believe what you want so no need to get hostile on me *cough* adam *cough cough*. its what i believe and obviously you don't 1. I'm not being hostile 2. Even if I was, I'd definately have reason to - You told me NOT TO POST my thoughts in my OWN guild, simply because I'm not agreeing with you 3. If I believed that the Pete was actually Kobe Bryant, would you not tell me I was wrong? Just because you believe something, that doesn't give you the right to act like a b***h. Now cut it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:03 pm
im not trying to act like a b***h, im just syaing that you don't have to believe me, and that you don't believe me because you made it clear that you don't and i respect that, if we didn't have opinions then there would be no individualism. and i have no idea where you got that i said you couldn't post what you thought but what ever i said i didn't mean it like that. I also never said you couldn't discuss it. if i didn't want you to disscuss it then i wouldn't have made the thread. I never said that having me believe someting gave me the right to be a b***h, Its just i don't deal with things when my opinions are being criticized by others opinions and i know i sound like a b***h but im not trying to be, im trying to make myself sound more reasonable then bitchy...so im sorry i sounded that way to you, and im trying to work on that....its a personal problem i am trying to fix
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:34 pm
Though I agree with Adam, can we please not make this turn into one of those Martha instances. We need to keep peace while discussing the topic, not accuse others of being wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:53 pm
i wasn;t ryng tto turn it into one of those...sorry and yes of course you agree with him...im always the bad guy in these situations aren't i?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:24 pm
No, I agree with him cause he has more constructive points, and I never really believed in this theory to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 12:34 pm
Yes i know, thats why i said of course you agree with him. But i already said that You didn't have to beleive me. I am not the onlyy one who believes me so you can't criticize me about my beliefs, i don't criticize yours so i don't think mine should be mocked or criticized either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:31 pm
I wasn't criticizing anyone. Geebees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
