Super_Ludacris
Avenger
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 19,926
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Kal-El 8 said:Ok first off
I know that, I wouldn't mind if Lana is a small part of them becoming sworn enemies [Just like with Harry Osborn & Peter Parker fighting over Mary Jane Watson] But to have Lana be the final nail in the coffin . I'd exspect something much more impressive and Bigger for two Legendary fictional comic book characters .
But we know there's been tension there and anything on an emotion and close level would be logical to divide the line. There's absolutley nothing wrong with that at all, you knew given the way the show was set up since season 1 that because the producers choose to put them in the same town together and become this close early that something on an emotional level (The parents, Lana, the foreshadowing) was gonna lay the grounds for how it was gonna end. What's so wrong with getting Lana involved? It adds drama it makes the rivarly personal. People like you may not like but think about why this show is one of the more impressive adaptations of Superman? The driving and changing relationships between all the characters in Clark's life. It makes it much more interesting and that's why people still watch. Better to Lana like this than just some teen 'ship, this is much more dramatic (from SV standards) and all Lana and Lex are characters everyone knows in the Superman mythology so it's a good interpretion for the modern Superman. As we saw with the recent movie, there aint nothing wrong with changing things here and there, but at least there not doing something drastic like giving Lois a ******ed kid (because she does breed ******s....
)I hated That love triangle in season 1 of Lois & Clark, I'm so happy they ended it at the end of season 1.
But using the Joker as an example is so out of the ballpark, it renders your argument senless because Lex is different. You can believe a Lex Luthour has the charm to steal or manipulate the people Clark love. Hell he's been proving thoughtout this series even Martha trusted him and one point when he offered to help the Kents farm out. Joker is just different, all the vilians in Batman are too outthere to suspend disbelief. With Lex you can buy it, that's why your weak ass argument doesnt hold.
Kal-El 8 said:And last of all, you don't know Jack about me. And I doubt you know as much about The Superman mythology than me. [You like many who watch smallville know the basics of the superman story, but you don't know all the details.]
Oh so you know me? That's cute, if they do ever kill off Lana maybe they should hire you as the most drama ridden "victiim" teen. You say people dont know jack about you then stop trying to preach people about shyt we already know like a comic book lecturer. Throughout my life I've read the comics, graphic novels, seen the Superman TV shows, all 5 movies. So what treehouse secret do I not know? It's Superman for god's sakes the most well known fictional character arguably in literature history. Superman fans wanna say that the character is so broad, so you know we get the basics, nothing here is wrong. You just being a comic book geek talking about we know the basics, if anything this show has shown more than the basic (focus on him growing up, showing his childhood friends, the origin of many things, Brainiac, showing other DC characters) so that generic snotty uppity "I know more than you argument" is weak.
Grown folks is talking, sit down. You never say anything when I put you in your place so play your position as usual. and go back to spamming the Durance thread.
And this is no fight, this is good healthy discussion going on here Mods.
t: 

. This is a debate, all you do is post shipper stuff, whine about the show and then someone tells you different you cower in the corner like your the victim
.