Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 1 spoiler discussion!

[TREK_GOD_1]

I don't know if she has to be furious given the scope of his secret, it comes down to the age old reason of secret super identities, i.e. protecting those close to them and trying to have a normal life. I think Lois can understand that ( and hopefully they talked about it after the big reveal).

Exactly. What that scope means is that Superman has a greater responsibility to the world (after deciding to work for it), and that cancels out any purely subjective notion of another person's "right" to be told about his true identity. His most personal and protected secrets only becomes the business of another when he decides its their business, no matter how long that takes.

People are entitled to their secrets. Clark should feel like he can tell or not tell someone something very personal whenever he feels most comfortable. Also the idea of people knowing his secret being in danger is still a danger so their is also a added level responsibility of whether or not you should put this burden of knowing the truth on someone. Especially complicated when you love that person.

Some continue to ignore the danger of a superhero's life on civilians, all because they want everyone to be "in" on that most dangerous of secrets (right out of the gates), which--as comic book history has laid out time and again--has taken the darkest of turns.

 

[Skipper]

I see the superhero persona like the sexual orientation. It can be public, it can be a well guarded secret, it can be shared just to few selected people. But only the person concerned can decide when and to whom to disclose it. And obviously the person to whom it is disclosed has no right to be angry or else if it had not been revealed to him/her before.

 

[Christopher]

I see the superhero persona like the sexual orientation. It can be public, it can be a well guarded secret, it can be shared just to few selected people. But only the person concerned can decide when and to whom to disclose it. And obviously the person to whom it is disclosed has no right to be angry or else if it had not been revealed to him/her before.

As I said, I'm not having a moral debate, I'm talking about what would've been dramatically interesting to watch as a scene between two characters. How a question is best resolved is one thing; what process a character goes through to reach that understanding is another thing altogether. It can be interesting to see a character wrestle with their feelings about an issue, regardless of whether those feelings are right or wrong. Drama is about conflict, after all, not about everyone instantly seeing the right answer and agreeing with each other. Whatever answer you feel they should ultimately arrive at, the interesting part is seeing them get there.

Like I said, we got to see how Jonathan and Jordan reacted to their father outing himself, and it wasn't a simple, straight-line acceptance. They got mad. They felt hurt. They needed time to understand and accept it. So I don't understand this resistance to the suggestion that Lois would've gone through a similar process, or that we as viewers deserved to see her go through it.

 

[Jayson1]

As I said, I'm not having a moral debate, I'm talking about what would've been dramatically interesting to watch as a scene between two characters. How a question is best resolved is one thing; what process a character goes through to reach that understanding is another thing altogether. It can be interesting to see a character wrestle with their feelings about an issue, regardless of whether those feelings are right or wrong. Drama is about conflict, after all, not about everyone instantly seeing the right answer and agreeing with each other. Whatever answer you feel they should ultimately arrive at, the interesting part is seeing them get there.

Like I said, we got to see how Jonathan and Jordan reacted to their father outing himself, and it wasn't a simple, straight-line acceptance. They got mad. They felt hurt. They needed time to understand and accept it. So I don't understand this resistance to the suggestion that Lois would've gone through a similar process, or that we as viewers deserved to see her go through it.

I get what your saying but I don't know. I feel like I have seen the scene were someone tells someone their secret and the other person gets mad for being kept in the dark a million times. I think it's kind of nice to see someone just understand why someone might have done that and be okay with it because you already have a level of trust with them. Plus when someone is telling you a secret they are opening up to you and exposing something important to them they don't share with others. A kind of intimacy and to get mad at that I'm not sure makes sense. Though I do wish they had gone more into that with her just accepting it but I understand we were basically just getting cool cliff note moments of his past. It does make me kind of like the idea of the show incorporating flashbacks more often in the show. Maybe even a time travel story at some point. Or next season show these same moments only more from Lois's point of view. See her as a kid watching her Dad go off to war. Show her asking Clark on a first date very soon after the Superman interview. Things like that.

 

[Photoman15]

People are entitled to their secrets. Clark should feel like he can tell or not tell someone something very personal whenever he feels most comfortable. Also the idea of people knowing his secret being in danger is still a danger so their is also a added level responsibility of whether or not you should put this burden of knowing the truth on someone. Especially complicated when you love that person.

Yes, people are entitled to their secrets, but let's flip your argument. Isn't Lois entitled to her secrets (safe from the prying ears of Superman/Clark Kent)?

 

[The Realist]

I get what your saying but I don't know. I feel like I have seen the scene were someone tells someone their secret and the other person gets mad for being kept in the dark a million times. I think it's kind of nice to see someone just understand why someone might have done that and be okay with it because you already have a level of trust with them.

There's some truth to this. I remember way back in the first season of Supergirl when Alex finally confessed to Kara, with great angst and apprehension, that she had killed Astra. Everybody expected that to lead to a lot of drama between them, and instead were pleasantly surprised and moved when Kara accepted it understandingly and compassionately, because of her love for Alex. Sometimes subverting the expectation of conflict can be as effective, and as revealing of characters and relationships, as taking the more obvious route of anger and recriminations.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Tal-Rho ignored Astra and Non.

A bro and a Super hot lady?

Non seems like he's shooting blanks.

Why else bang the robot who killed your wife?

These Kryptonians don't seem too worried about dying out as a species.

Just on a question of genetic diversity, every woman should have babies with multiple partners, to avoid inbreeding, or to make inbreeding less obvious.

Tal has been working on this plan for a while.

Myriad would have ruined everything.

Meanwhile there's Rea, Teri Hatcher, the Queen of Daxam, which barring racism, is close enough, but there was a Daxamite Army. Tal could have cruised for a Daximite soldier girl, up until Lena brought out the lead.

We need a little confirmation that...

I heard that John Diggle is going to be doing a circuit of the Arrowverse.

Is he coming to Smallville?

That would confirm that it's bad continuity, rather than no continuity.

 

[Christopher]

There's some truth to this. I remember way back in the first season of Supergirl when Alex finally confessed to Kara, with great angst and apprehension, that she had killed Astra. Everybody expected that to lead to a lot of drama between them, and instead were pleasantly surprised and moved when Kara accepted it understandingly and compassionately, because of her love for Alex. Sometimes subverting the expectation of conflict can be as effective, and as revealing of characters and relationships, as taking the more obvious route of anger and recriminations.

Yeah, but that kind of reaction is in character for Kara. That doesn't mean it would be in character for Lois Lane. Every character is different, which is what makes fiction interesting. And my feeling about Lois's character, her personality, is that her initial response would be anger, because that's the kind of person Lois is. Yes, of course she would come around eventually, but she's tough, confrontational, and stubborn, so I think it would take time.

Part of that is that I like Tulloch's Lois when she gets tough, like when she chewed out Sam Lane for being a lousy parent a few weeks back. It's at moments like those that I think she really captures Lois Lane, and I think it would've been cool to get to see her play that kind of confrontation with Clark/Superman. I mean, she and Clark usually get along so splendidly as spouses -- it would've been a neat change of pace to get to see her lose her temper at him.

 

[Mudd]

Criticizing the narrative because it doesn't emphasize the dramatic beats you think an origin should is missing the point - they weren't telling Clark's story with respect to what mattered to him; they were doing a nice job, though, of disguising the fact that they were showing Tal sifting Clark's memories for information that was usable.

 

[Skipper]

By the way, John Stewart, one of the Earth's Green Lanterns, once revealed his secret identity to the woman he was dating who was a reporter too.

It didn't go well

 

[Skipper]

And regarding Lois' reaction (or lack of) to the big reveal: if we were talking about Earth-1 pre-reboot version of the character, whom Superman spent virtually half of his time gaslighting and making doubting of her mental sanity, she would be justified in being furious with the intensity of 1000 exploding suns.

But here? She should be just grateful he shared with her this secret which, as the pages I posted show, could have devastating consequences.

 

[Christopher]

But here? She should be just grateful he shared with her this secret which, as the pages I posted show, could have devastating consequences.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I was never talking about the conclusion Lois would eventually reach. I was talking about what her initial, first-blush reaction would probably be immediately after being told, before she had time to work through it. There's a difference that should be obvious. Jonathan and Jordan were angry at first; they aren't anymore. Hell, Lena Luthor was mad at Kara for a whole season after finding out, and now she's fine with it. We got to see other characters go through that process before reaching acceptance. I'm just saying I wanted to see Lois's process. Okay?

 

[Skipper]

And in my opinion, considering their relationship in the tv show, her reaction was something like "Oh, it makes sense. Thanks for telling me, I can only imagine what a great sign of trust is this for you".

 

[Christopher]

And in my opinion, considering their relationship in the tv show, her reaction was something like "Oh, it makes sense. Thanks for telling me, I can only imagine what a great sign of trust is this for you".

And that would not be all that interesting to see as a performance. I've explained this. I like it when Tulloch's Lois gets intense or angry. I think it would've been more entertaining to see her react to Clark's revelation in a more dramatic and complex fashion.

And regardless of how one thinks she "should" have reacted, I still think the episode did her a disservice by glossing over her reaction. She and Clark are supposed to be equal leads in this show, but that scene reduced Lois to a passive role in what should have been one of the most important moments of her life as well as Clark's.

 

[Mudd]

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Not once.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I see the superhero persona like the sexual orientation. It can be public, it can be a well guarded secret, it can be shared just to few selected people. But only the person concerned can decide when and to whom to disclose it. And obviously the person to whom it is disclosed has no right to be angry or else if it had not been revealed to him/her before.

Well put. For some reason, some are so divorced from the way an individual has a natural right to his or her private history or life, and it is only up to that person--sans any obligation to another--to reveal it. Minds not so immature that they feel insecure if they are not told "everything" understand that for everyone, there are experiences or actions that are not an "open book" to anyone else, no matter the nature of the relationship. That level of privacy only relaxes if the person--as you pointed out--decides to share said experiences, actions or other private details. That cannot be so difficult to understand--even with fictional characters.

 

[Skipper]

Well, I see a kind of exception to the sexual orientation/superhero persona rule. Let's suppose that someone finds the truth but the person concerned continues to deny everything, eventually spending a lot of time and resources deceiving the other and lying to him/her, even with an accomplice to help perpetrate the deception. Exactly what the Pre-Crisis Superman used to do: this would put him/her in the wrong.

 

[YLu]

The problem with the pre-Crisis Superman set up is that it never justifies *why* it would be so dangerous for others to learn his secret, to the point where he has to go to such extremes to keep them in the dark. Pre-Crisis Pete Ross knows and nothing bad ever happens to him as a result.

 

[Christopher]

The problem with the pre-Crisis Superman set up is that it never justifies *why* it would be so dangerous for others to learn his secret, to the point where he has to go to such extremes to keep them in the dark. Pre-Crisis Pete Ross knows and nothing bad ever happens to him as a result.

Yeah, that excuse doesn't really hold water. The idea is that if they knew, they could be captured and tortured to reveal the secret, so they're safer not knowing. But that never makes sense, because the hero's loved ones are usually close to them in their hero identity too. Lois and Jimmy got captured by bad guys on a regular basis anyway. It didn't matter to their safety if they actually knew Superman's identity or not; the bad guys could've tortured them just on the suspicion that they might know. So it's not really about protecting the loved ones at all -- it's just about protecting the hero's own identity from exposure even if their loved ones are tortured. But the stories never admit that because it doesn't sound heroic that way.

 

[Skipper]

The problem with the pre-Crisis Superman set up is that it never justifies *why* it would be so dangerous for others to learn his secret, to the point where he has to go to such extremes to keep them in the dark. Pre-Crisis Pete Ross knows and nothing bad ever happens to him as a result.

Well, unless you count Whatever happened to the Man of Tomorrow where...

Spoiler: Whatever happened to Pete Ross

But yes, you are absolutely right, considering that Clark Kent and Superman had virtually the same friends at the Daily Planet and I lost the count of how many times supervillains kidnapped or threatened them only because they were the Man Of Steel's acquaintances. So the nebulous "it's for their own good" reason doesn't make much sense.