Clark Kent: Killing's just dandy!

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by euterpe
Clark didn’t know Knox was killing his patients when he first “killed” him. Lex informed him of that later in the hospital. And even if Clark did not intend to kill Knox, did he just assume he was dead without even checking? Why didn’t he pick up both Lex AND Knox and rush them both to the hospital and sort things out later. It’s not like it would be too much of a burden; the man tosses tractors, for crying out loud.

That’s always a problem I have had with Clark from the beginning. There have been many times when he’s tossed people aside or they were somehow “done in” and he just let it happen or left them. As far as I am concerned, standing by and letting someone die when you know you could do something to prevent it is just as bad as killing by your own hand.

I agree with the notion that Clark is King of Overkill. He should be able to knock someone out without sending them flying across the room. Even a dog with (I’m generously assuming) a lesser intelligence than Clark, has enough control that it can harmlessly carry it’s pups in the same mouth with which it could crush a man’s leg.

You guys are all forgetting, Clark has superhearing and heard the whole conversation, knowing that Lex was in danger. How else did Clark know where to go to find Lex and Knox? Clark knew what he was doing.

[Mischael12]

Originally posted by TampaVille
You're technically correct, but I think you're missing HalJordan's point (excellently said, by the way, Hal). The whole "Superman doesn't kill" thing doesn't mean that he uses his powers willy nilly but the baddies always end up surviving. It means that he goes way out of his way to use less than what would be lethal force to neutralize his enemies without killing them.

You are correct in pointing out examples where Superman DID use excessive force, and just happened not to kill the villain. Those instances fall into one of two categories though:

1) Bad writing (such as the Al/Miles variety of "Supes doesn't kill)
2) Antiquated writing

Golden Age Superman is not the basis of SV. Superman's personality and ethics have evolved a lot over the last 68 years!

I would beg to differ, while Golden Age Superman is not the basis for SV, can't be argued that he is not a part of it. I understood Hal's point but i'm pointing out that this isn't the superman we've grown up. Clark in Smallville isn't Golden age, silver age, or modern superman...he's a mesh of all of them. Though right now i would argue that he comes off more as SuperBoy Prime than any of the other superman. But it isn't the first time we've seen clark use excessive force that should have killed people. He's thrown people into cars, threw a bowling ball at that kid ryans step dad.

He's done things that really should have resulted in deaths but they kept it off screen (Golden Age Superman). THis is the first time really we've seen him admitting to taking a life, but i think they are trying to give him that edge that many people feel that superman needs.

While most of us who grew up on the comics, or have taken the time to become comic book buffs admire superman's "no killing ideals" and what not, we are not the only spectrum out there. THere are people who want to stop seeing Boy-Scout Superman, and want to see one very much like Batman.

Sad in my opinion, but again this isn't SUperman, this is SV, if they want to stretch it a bit i say let them do it. As long as Clark never actually kills anyone I'll be fine.

[smallviluva]

ok, firstly maybe i got this wrong but when clark was in the hospital with lex didnt he say soemthing about following the butcher? so why would he call him that before he knew he killed his patients,n then he said he followed him which meant he would of seen and heard him n lex and know he couldnt die.and would lex quesiton how he thought he killed him? clark could of sed he found him lying there after seein knox drive away (from following) but he said he attacked/killed him for him.

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by smallviluva
ok, firstly maybe i got this wrong but when clark was in the hospital with lex didnt he say soemthing about following the butcher? so why would he call him that before he knew he killed his patients,n then he said he followed him which meant he would of seen and heard him n lex and know he couldnt die.and would lex quesiton how he thought he killed him? clark could of sed he found him lying there after seein knox drive away (from following) but he said he attacked/killed him for him.

Lex called Knox a butcher because different patients of Knox's were ending up missing or worse so Lex just assumed he was at fault and was doing his own actions with his patients. Clark could have only heard so much using superhearing before he rushed off to save Lex, pushing him away. Clark wasnt waiting for much of an invitation to come and save someone, Lex.

[euterpe]

Of course, he may have called Knox a butcher because of Sasha’s dead body wrapped in plastic that Knox dragged out of the trunk right before his altercations with Lex and Clark.

[TampaVille]

Originally posted by Mischael12
I would beg to differ, while Golden Age Superman is not the basis for SV, can't be argued that he is not a part of it. I understood Hal's point but i'm pointing out that this isn't the superman we've grown up. Clark in Smallville isn't Golden age, silver age, or modern superman...he's a mesh of all of them. Though right now i would argue that he comes off more as SuperBoy Prime than any of the other superman. But it isn't the first time we've seen clark use excessive force that should have killed people. He's thrown people into cars, threw a bowling ball at that kid ryans step dad.

He's done things that really should have resulted in deaths but they kept it off screen (Golden Age Superman). THis is the first time really we've seen him admitting to taking a life, but i think they are trying to give him that edge that many people feel that superman needs.

While most of us who grew up on the comics, or have taken the time to become comic book buffs admire superman's "no killing ideals" and what not, we are not the only spectrum out there. THere are people who want to stop seeing Boy-Scout Superman, and want to see one very much like Batman.

Sad in my opinion, but again this isn't SUperman, this is SV, if they want to stretch it a bit i say let them do it. As long as Clark never actually kills anyone I'll be fine.

You know... I think you're absolutely right. You've made some really good points I hadn't put together.

[Mischael12]

As well Clark doesnt' have a luxury that superman has.

No one knows Superman's identity they know Clarks so he can't afford to actually take the time to dismantle a villain. To let them fight back or even get close enough to allow them to see his face.

He needs to resort to methods that are well cruder i would say. How many times has clark just superspeed in and just hit the person at huge speeds?

[HalJordan4184]

Yes, because the entire point of Superman, is just making sure no one knows his secret identity.... or not. It's not about people not knowing who he is. It's about the fact, he'll just haphazardly kill them, because he's too lazy to take the right approach. Clark Kent, is not supposed to be vigilante extrordinaire, who goes all the way when the law men can't. That's simply not the character, and no matter how many times the writers try to say that is what Clark Kent is like, they will quite simply be wrong.

[Mischael12]

that is true it isn't what Clark Kent is like, but this isn't the clark kent mild mannered report, this is a clark kent who is more realistic(well how they want it to be) he's not perfect, he's not super smart, he isn't super determined, he just is Clark Kent. A man who wants a normal life but can't have it, and i think that frustration is starting to get to him. He's actions are like i said very much like Super Boy Prime, a person trying to show that they are a hero; but it holds parts of the other supermen as well. He desires to live a normal life

I personally would like Clark to solve his things through thinking, through wits, and he has done that before, but its always when he is acting in the shadows, until he dons the cape i think we can expect more of clark just rushing to the rescue.

Hell there were times when he could have saved the villain and the victim, but he saved the victim especially in cases of his family and friends.

The problem i would say with the way they are showing this clark kent is that we don't get a good enough character development from him. We know he wants to be normal but ever since he left high school we haven't seen that struggle, so its hard to say well he is frustrated because what we see is a clark kent who is just worried about what the person he loves would think.

The world finding his secret is more to because his parents didn't want them too, with them gone now we can definitely see that recklessness that has been itching to come out.

Sigh this entire post made no sense to me...sorry.

[mistaguitarmasta]

i agree with a lot of things that were said here. first, i think the fact that clark said "it made him sick" that he killed someone proves that he's NOT okay with killing. he's not superman yet (and at this rate he might never be. thanks TPTB.)

of course the other possibility is that he could have used superhearing to listen in on the conversation, pummeled knox knowing he wouldn't harm him, and then pretended to be upset in front of lex in the hospital.

[Mischael12]

Point is Clark should never have had to use such excessive force, but the thing is i'm not going to cry about it because i know this isn't the Superman I've grown up with, its not the same.

And i'm always willing to give things the chance even if they change things around. Who knows maybe soon in the comic books we may see a superman who is more willing to kill.

[Ardiem3]

I think people are just looking too much into it. Clark heard from a far that Curtis was about to harm Lex, so instead of Lex dying, he pushed Knox aside to save Lex, end of story.

[HalJordan4184]

It's not the end of the story. If he simply shoved know aside, that would be the end of story. Instead he tosses him like thirty feet, and electorcutes him. That's not shoving him aside.

[Mischael12]

The point is the shoving aside wouldn't have killed him...somehow...its the electrocution that would have.

[Ardiem3]

Originally posted by HalJordan4184
It's not the end of the story. If he simply shoved know aside, that would be the end of story. Instead he tosses him like thirty feet, and electorcutes him. That's not shoving him aside.

Yea, it is the end. Shoving aside in Clarks world, is sending him feet away. Clark heard that he was the villain and about to hurt Lex from a far, thats why he knew where to go to meet them. He didnt just find the spot randomly. He decided, possibly seriously hurt the villain of the situation, or have the villain hurt the innocent person at the time, Lex.