Sounds fine, except that we don't really see her DO any investigating or use any skills (like digging into Clark's past, for example). All she does is notice that the picture of Superman in the paper looks an awful lot like Clark when you draw a suit on him.
I get that she's a smart reporter with good instincts, but I doubt she's the ONLY one in the office who could put 2 and 2 together like that.
Realistically, no. But I'm not comparing Donner's Lois to a real-life reporter; I'm comparing her to other interpretations of the same character, and particularly to Richard Lester's far more gullible and passive interpretation of her. What matters is that she's the only Lois Lane
who was able to put 2 and 2 together like that.
(Well, maybe not the only Lois Lane; the Loises -- Loes? -- of the Silver Age comics and the George Reeves show were constantly trying to prove that Clark was Superman. So they noted the resemblance and suspected the truth. But Clark managed to fool them over and over again, so they weren't as determined and successful in their pursuit of proof as Donner's Lois was.)
Yeah it does make her seem a lot smarter and sharper than how the Lester version did it, but jumping out a window-- even with Superman around-- is just a completely wacky and bizarre thing to do.
This is what Lois Lane does. She takes crazy risks in pursuit of a story. Perhaps this was a more extreme risk than she'd usually be portrayed as taking, but it's simply a matter of degree -- and one expects a movie to take things to extremes like that, in contrast to an ongoing series that would keep things less extreme so as not to upset the status quo too much. Donner only had two hours to tell this part of the story, so Lois's actions to prove Clark was Superman had to be taken to a more extreme level than they would've been otherwise, in order to justify the fact that she brought things to a head so soon.
If the scene had stopped before that, and just had her continue to eye Clark suspiciously for the rest of the movie, it would have been MUCH more appropriate and believable for the character, I think.
See above. The movie was about bringing the relationship between Lois and Superman to consummation. Movie storytelling is different from series storytelling in that you can't just maintain the status quo -- you need to have big, important things happen. A story that can be dragged out for years or decades in series storytelling needs to be compacted into a single piece in movies. In the comics or the TV series, "Lois suspects Clark is Superman" was a status-quo situation, the basis for a series of repetitive plot beats that created a sense of tension but never actually altered the status quo. Movies don't work that way. In this movie, this duology of films as it was conceived, "Lois suspects Clark is Superman" needed instead to be the beginning of the arc of Lois proving
that Clark was Superman, Lois and Superman entering into a relationship, Superman choosing to renounce his powers for love of Lois, etc.
Think about what the reviewers are saying about The Dark Knight Rises
-- how, because Nolan was telling Batman's story as a finite cinematic trilogy instead of a monthly comic, he could give the story of Batman things it couldn't normally have, like permanent changes to the status quo and a decisive ending. Similarly, this epic 2-part Superman saga that Donner was supposed to be making was able to take the Lois-Superman relationship to a place it couldn't go in the comics -- even if it did cop out on the ending. It needed to be an actual relationship rather than a potential one in order to serve the needs of a movie duology.