Super_Ludacris said:
In theory though there's nothing wrong with putting her there. How many superhero love stories have a girl in them? A lot. It's an accpeted convention. Fact is if they hadnt put the love story through a teen soap opera or made her a witch they would be less dissent from some of the more hardcore fans cause they sure didnt have a problem when she was that in the first 2 seasons ( I personally think that would have been pointless to keep her like that, better to get her more involed just make better more credible storylines)
Here is the thing. That part of Clark's life is in a way suppose to be separate from that.
When you have someone like Zod or this version of Brainiac, the story is about the boy sent to earth, from a dead planet. When you suddenly turn his girl into the reincarnated version of someone who hurted down the crystals years before you start to have problems.
There isn't always need to make Lana super significant to Clark's storyline. Sometimes he could just be confronting evil or his father's sins. That is also a commonly used arc in superhero mythos.
Super_Ludacris said:
Every character deserves a storyline and an arc in the show, obviously it must at the end of the day involve Clark as he is the main character but they all deserve good storylines. Lana needs that again. I'll give KK credit for at least having fun with those awful storylines much better than just leaving her than the girl in the talon but writers should give her something better than that. Again if they did that, no one would say anything. I mean Lois is absolutley useless on and shouldnt even be on the show, her chemistry with Clark is hammy as hell and she's only good for getting her **** out but no one complains cause she isnt giving the tortured girl routine.
So you would agree that they have written the character into the ground on more then a few ocassions? You don't believe that some of the problems with Lana's character is that perhaps the need to insert her in every situation and that KK really isn't a strong actress?
Super_Ludacris said:
Well Buffy to me set off a teen/fantasy genre on it's own that had mulit-dimensional aspects and as the predessor for Smallville on the WB so I imagine guys like Steve Deknight and TPTB aspire to be and I thought in season 1 they were gonna follow that blueprint and mix humourous novelty episodes with serious storylines like Buffy and Angel but it doesnt execute well when there is perceieved notions about Superman's mythology. Everyone has a different perspective
It doesn't work because the writers and actors suffer in terms of ability. Even DeKnight looks losted here.
Super_Ludacris said:
The thing that amazes about people who say this is, I really think they haven watch the show from the start. I mean back in 2001 I thought the mission statement was to be bring a younger, trendy Clark Kent story. The fact that the storylines for everyone in those early seasons worked so well is why no one complained and they just kept it going but they obviously hit a wall in Season 4. But still they have certain growing issues to address and it is after all a WB show, so of course there going to throw that in to appeal to there market. Fair enough, it is a business still.
Young and trendy means making it mindless and lacking in depth? They use those things to make an easy way out of working on strong characters, scripts, and acting.
Super_Ludacris said:
They have a plan for what the major arcs of the show are going to be however I dont think they expected the network to keep it beyond 5 seasons so they added other storylines and other things for characters to strech it over (what it looks like) more than 7 seasons. That's fine but they need to keep it tight and give credbility to all the characters.
Major arcs? They have avoid pulling the trigger far to many times over the years for me to believe they actually knew were everything would sit at the end of five seasons.
Super_Ludacris said:
Not even close. Lana is not so disliked, only on the internet with the fanboys who want the fantasy/comic book element more than a Dawson's Creek show (or derranged Chloe fans). What you have however is a polarization when it comes to her ( the person universally dislike was Whitney). You've got this large CW/WB audience who love the fact that she's Clark's girl and there so vocal and large in numbers there petitions have been enough to force the writers to have them make up again for there sakes. So if they kill her off, your automatically pissing off at least 60% of the audience. Lotta people dont watch for the Clana too but no one hates to the point where there burining effigies that's lame. And if they kill you get this empty unresolved void and that's just as bad a critical point for the writers as many of the inconsistent storylines people complain about. The fact that it satisfies the internet audience for maybe 5 minutes doesnt help. Anyone can kill a character off, its better to have that character endear themselves to the audience.
But what if a character can't endear themselves? What is the character's only path is a rehash of what others have done on the same show, or even perhaps what the character themselves has already gone through.
You act as if getting rid of a character shouldn't, ever be done. It isn't only a cop out. Some times it is sound decision making.
Also were do you get these statistics?
t:
