Spoilers "Superman & Lois" Season 2

[The Realist]

It's possible, but with the date given for the flashback, and the reference to Lucy losing her job and fiancée, they were just suggesting the reason we never saw Lucy again after season one of Supergirl was that she hit bottom off-screen.

I feel like Supergirl’s pre-Crisis Lucy was much too “together” for that to be the case. Granted the flashback was fairly recent, but the implication I got was that Lucy had pretty much been a mess her whole life, at least since her mother’s abandonment.

I noticed Superman called Anderson "General" this time, so "Lieutenant" was apparently a mistaken abbreviation for "Lieutenant General" in the earlier episode.

I noticed that, too. Glad they corrected it, though it’s really not something they should have gotten wrong in the first place.

 

[Tuskin38]

Hopefully Bizarro's necklace was the cause of the mental cross-over between the two of them

It was happening before he had the necklace.

 

[The Realist]

The real Uyuni Salt Flat in Bolivia looks a lot like what we saw on screen:

 

[thribs]

Doesn’t have three idiots driving on it with cars. That’s why I didn’t recognise it.

 

[David cgc]

But the episode starts with him getting the necklace

It was happening before he had the necklace.

No, he was wearing it at the end of the last episode, when he first took his oversuit off. I think he was trying to destroy it with his heat-breath (presumably, he also has freeze-vision) at the start of this episode, not digging it out of the ice.

 

[Tuskin38]

No, he was wearing it at the end of the last episode, when he first took his oversuit off. I think he was trying to destroy it with his heat-breath (presumably, he also has freeze-vision) at the start of this episode, not digging it out of the ice.

Oh, I guess I'm blind then.

 

[Christopher]

It's cute that Bizarro has a necklace -- it's reminiscent of the "Bizarro #1" medal that the comics character wore to differentiate himself from all the other Bizarro duplicates.

Can we please get to the part where Superman gets to succeed at something again? This is consistently becoming a show about Superman failing to do things, and now it's starting to become a show about Lois failing too. A Superman show shouldn't be this depressing.

I liked how well Sarah handled the talk about Dean digging up her suicide attempt. That part was really cool.

How the heck did Sam Lane access a random convenience store's security video from a golf course in a matter of seconds?

 

[FPAlpha]

Am I the only one who thinks it's odd how they treated Sarah kissing some one else? I get the similarities, but a secret identity really isn't the same, and I get her mom's gonna' be on her side, but if Lana's husband kissed some one else and Lana didn't forgive him would she "not deserve him"? Then...did Jonathon seriously apologize to her at the end?

That part really pissed me off. Girl cheats on her boyfriend ( and yes, romantically kissing someone who's not your partner is cheating) and if boyfriend is not ok with it he's not right for you? What kind of bullshit parental advice is that?

 

[crookeddy]

That part really pissed me off. Girl cheats on her boyfriend ( and yes, romantically kissing someone who's not your partner is cheating) and if boyfriend is not ok with it he's not right for you? What kind of bullshit parental advice is that?

That's CW thinking for you. The morality of some of the characters (and probably writers) is questionable.

 

[David cgc]

That part really pissed me off. Girl cheats on her boyfriend ( and yes, romantically kissing someone who's not your partner is cheating) and if boyfriend is not ok with it he's not right for you? What kind of bullshit parental advice is that?

Apparently, the kind that immediately has ironic echoes closer to home.

 

[Christopher]

That part really pissed me off. Girl cheats on her boyfriend ( and yes, romantically kissing someone who's not your partner is cheating) and if boyfriend is not ok with it he's not right for you? What kind of bullshit parental advice is that?

The kind that recognizes that women are not men's property and have the right to realize they're interested in someone else? The kind that understands that teenagers are still exploring who they are and it's premature to demand rigid commitment? The kind that values forgiveness and understanding over looking for excuses to condemn and punish? Sarah didn't "cheat," which implies the deliberate intent and choice to deceive; she had a single impulsive moment that she did not choose to follow up on, and that she voluntarily told Jordan about after a brief hesitation.

Besides, I thought that the younger generation these days was flexible about the whole monogamy thing, that polyamory and open relationships were coming to be seen as more acceptable. There was a whole TV series, Siren, whose three leads (one male, two female) were in a polyamorous relationship with one another, and it was never treated as weird or wrong.

 

[Snaploud]

Polyamory and open relationships are fine when those are the terms of the relationship agreed upon by all parties within those relationships. It's a gray area if you never had an explicit conversation about exclusivity/monogamy.

Sarah and Jordan appeared to have had an at least tacit understanding that they were exclusive, which is why many are interpreting her actions as cheating. Obviously, context matters as does her intent. In Jordan's place, I would be less concerned about the cheating distinction and more interested in the reasons behind the kiss (as she may be homosexual but not bisexual, she may have kissed the girl out of a feeling of being trapped in an exclusive relationship at such a young age, etc.)

 

[crookeddy]

Polyamory and open relationships are fine when those are the terms of the relationship agreed upon by all parties within those relationships. It's a gray area if you never had an explicit conversation about exclusivity/monogamy.

Sarah and Jordan appeared to have had an at least tacit understanding that they were exclusive, which is why many are interpreting her actions as cheating. Obviously, context matters as does her intent. In Jordan's place, I would be less concerned about the cheating distinction and more interested in the reasons behind the kiss (as she may be homosexual but not bisexual, she may have kissed the girl out of a feeling of being trapped in an exclusive relationship at such a young age, etc.)

She thought of it as cheating herself, thats why she was so scared to admit to it happening. And let me tell you something, if it was the man saying "yeah I kissed someone else, but it didn't mean anything" the storyline would not go the way this one has.

 

[The Realist]

Sarah herself regarded what she did as wrong, which is why she treated it as something she needed to confess to Jordan. But I have to agree with Lana that if Jordan couldn't find it in himself to forgive her, then he doesn't deserve her. Being understanding and forgiving of an admitted mistake by the girl you love is a pretty low bar to clear.

 

[Guy Gardener]

If Lana is a Manhunter, Then is Sarah a Boyhuntner?

And if she is a Boyhunter, why is she hunting girls?

Lois Lane just got a new adult Brother in the comics.

"Leonardo Lane"

Master Spy, works for checkmate,

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

That part really pissed me off. Girl cheats on her boyfriend ( and yes, romantically kissing someone who's not your partner is cheating) and if boyfriend is not ok with it he's not right for you? What kind of bullshit parental advice is that?

That's why anyone in touch with reality knows that Lana's advice was pure crap; Sarah was the one in the wrong, and Jordan had no reason to feel even slightly apologetic for anything. Further, and there's no indication that Jordan and Sarah are not exclusive (hence all of the "you're the one for me" kind of plotting), so there's the natural assumption that they're in a stable relationship so it justified Jordan's equally natural reaction (initially, feelings of anger and betrayal). We will see if Lana is so cavalier about being the one in the position to accept "anything goes" relationships if her husband's affair becomes public information. Anything less than a consistent reaction is just another example of how Berlanti productions writes double standards for certain characters (e.g. on Supergirl, SG was all smiles and supportive of Kelly becoming the Gaurdian, but she was completely hostile to the idea of James taking on the role, threatening to stop him).

 

[Nerys Myk]

How the heck did Sam Lane access a random convenience store's security video from a golf course in a matter of seconds?

He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.

 

[Guy Gardener]

That's why anyone in touch with reality knows that Lana's advice was pure crap; Sarah was the one in the wrong, and Jordan had no reason to feel even slightly apologetic for anything. Further, and there's no indication that Jordan and Sarah are not exclusive (hence all of the "you're the one for me" kind of plotting), so there's the natural assumption that they're in a stable relationship so it justified Jordan's equally natural reaction (initially, feelings of anger and betrayal). We will see if Lana is so cavalier about being the one in the position to accept "anything goes" relationships if her husband's affair becomes public information. Anything less than a consistent reaction is just another example of how Berlanti productions writes double standards for certain characters (e.g. on Supergirl[/], SG was all smiles and supportive of Kelly becoming the Gaurdian, but she was completely hostile to the idea of James taking on the role, threatening to stop him).

It used to be okay to tell your daughter "You're a slut and Jesus will Punish you" but it's not okay to tell your daughter "You're a slut and Jesus will punish you" anymore these day, because it leads to traumatic social anxiety.

It's Lana's job to make Sarah feel good about herself, and that Kent kid can jump in the lake.

 

[Mudd]

You are not psychic.

That's why anyone in touch with reality knows that Lana's advice was pure crap; Sarah was the one in the wrong, and Jordan had no reason to feel even slightly apologetic for anything.

You're wrong about every part of this.

I haven't seen any indication from your posts that you are more "in touch with reality" in the sense of having relevant experience than the people who are disagreeing with you, and certainly not more than I am.

 

[Christopher]

He could tell you, but then he'd have to kill you.

Total digression here, but does anyone know where that expression first came from? Probably some spy story. It's a cliche now, but I have the impression that I never encountered it growing up, so maybe it originated within my lifetime.