... and just a few comments that might be germane to the whole Lex/Clark situation.
I haven't been able to really watch SV since the second season, but I've kept up with the plot advancements to a certain extent. The other day, I caught the last 15 minutes of a episode from last season. Don't know what it was called, but Martha had contracted a virus and Clark tried to save her. Lex has been possessed by General Zod, at this point, but I don't think the viewing audience yet knew it. Anyway, as I watched, I had the following thoughts:
When Clark joins forces with the wrong people (e.g. Fine), his father and mother are understanding, and comfort him. When Lex joins forces with the wrong people, he's evil.
When Chloe investigates Lex by breaking into his warehouses, she's being a good citizen and a good reporter, and everyone supports her. When Lex investigates Clark, he's evil.
When Clark does bad things because of Red K, he's forgiven. When Lex does bad things because of being possessed by General Zod, he's evil.
I'm trying to figure out the ethical basis of this show, and I can't. I mean, I wonder if the writers/producers believe in the judgements of the characters, or not. If they believe that Lex is culpable, and Clark and his friends aren't, what is their reasoning? If they don't believe in it, why do they go on pretending that Clark is the hero?
I'm not asking for the producers of SV to give us simplistic answers. I'd just like some sort of explanation of what their reasoning is. That's all. But I suppose it's too much to ask. Maybe there is no reasoning, and they're just winging it. But that's scary. A lot of young people watch this show. What are they learning from it? See above.
Love the story so far....
I haven't been able to really watch SV since the second season, but I've kept up with the plot advancements to a certain extent. The other day, I caught the last 15 minutes of a episode from last season. Don't know what it was called, but Martha had contracted a virus and Clark tried to save her. Lex has been possessed by General Zod, at this point, but I don't think the viewing audience yet knew it. Anyway, as I watched, I had the following thoughts:
When Clark joins forces with the wrong people (e.g. Fine), his father and mother are understanding, and comfort him. When Lex joins forces with the wrong people, he's evil.
When Chloe investigates Lex by breaking into his warehouses, she's being a good citizen and a good reporter, and everyone supports her. When Lex investigates Clark, he's evil.
When Clark does bad things because of Red K, he's forgiven. When Lex does bad things because of being possessed by General Zod, he's evil.
I'm trying to figure out the ethical basis of this show, and I can't. I mean, I wonder if the writers/producers believe in the judgements of the characters, or not. If they believe that Lex is culpable, and Clark and his friends aren't, what is their reasoning? If they don't believe in it, why do they go on pretending that Clark is the hero?
I'm not asking for the producers of SV to give us simplistic answers. I'd just like some sort of explanation of what their reasoning is. That's all. But I suppose it's too much to ask. Maybe there is no reasoning, and they're just winging it. But that's scary. A lot of young people watch this show. What are they learning from it? See above.