What a retard

Ahh yes, when the Joker expresses his love of murder that means the author loves murder
When a jaded mentor says "it's hopeless" then it must actually be hopeless!
Characters are never wrong, and all dialogue is the unfiltered belief of the author
You are very smart and not the dumbest autist on the planet

She's not untrustworthy though, Clark is.

>Lois is an untrustworthy individual.
Then so is Clark, only difference is that Clark is less trustworthy then Lois.

Becouse he didn't spill out all his secrets to the reporter that he just met a few days ago! Keep up with the conversation, anon!

>nitpicking
It's literally made clear in the first goddamned episode: Lois is an untrustworthy individual.
That's why she's not getting that promotion she wants, that's why she's constantly getting in trouble and that's why Clark feels unsure about sharing his secret with her.
It would have been nice if the show directly addressed that instead of hand-waving the entire issue and spending the entire episode on something else entirely.
I'm not sure how you can call that "nitpicking".

[...]
This is such ridiculous nitpicking
Do you need the characters to literally announce their motivations at all times?

To put it another way:
It did exactly what you're asking, but apparently in too subtle and realistic a manner for you.

>She literally lies to the two new interns on the first day of the job. What the frick do you call that besides "untrustworthy"?
What does she lie about? Is this something important or does she just tell them the wrong direction to the bathroom for shits and giggles?

>What does she lie about?
Anon, the entire show is easily watchable online, for free.
But if you REALLY can't be bothered;
>presents a crackpot theory to her boss
>wants his approval to investigate a location related to said crackpot theory
>boss says no because she's not the full-time reporter like she believes she is
>meets the two new interns, it's their first day on the job
>straight up lies to them that she got her boss' permission to go investigate and drags both of them with her

Oh, so it is just you nitpicking her actions.

>liar gets introduced
>liar does what they do and start lying
>liar gets called out, liar promises to stop lying
People with either a functional brain or life experience know that what happens next is
>liar starts lying again

And now you're literally assuming the worst out of nowhere. Okay, let's start assuming Superman is secretly an evil piece of shit because people in real life are buttholes amirite?

>can't read the emotional context in a cartoon for children
>"you guys just don't have any real world experience"

I've heard some genuine diagnosed autists argue that empathy doesn't even exist and we're all deluding ourselves by thinking we can read emotional cues from actual real live people, let alone animated slop.

>nitpicking her actions.
Getting him to do something under false pretenses that almost got them fired is nickpicking?

>>has to describe it in a really specific way

>LIE TO COWORKERS
>ENDANGER THEM AND THEIR JOBS

>we didn't kill those people, we laid them to rest
NTA, but your argument is moronic

>You're the one
I literally said I'm "not that anon"
Do you have brain issues?
And
>small casual recklessness
>expected of a plucky hero
You have to be trolling

You could say "lies to get them to go with her" if you want, it still doesn't sound like a horrible crime.

>You're the one
I literally said I'm "not that anon"
Do you have brain issues?
And
>small casual recklessness
>expected of a plucky hero
You have to be trolling

What was described is entirely what I'd expect of Lois' character archetype. Making small shortcuts to get to the truth. It's something a headstrong protagonist would do.

It's part of the genre. If every action hero carefully weighed all their options and risks before going into action those probably wouldn't be action stories anymore.

>which is still no justification for ANYTHING we're talking about
NTA but yeah it is.

>The cartoon is based on realism
Hahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>The cartoon is based on realism with aspects of fantasy
Are you going to be okay after the
Mister Mxyzptlk episode?

>(vague catty response that deliberately avoids the subject matter)
Wow this show really does have a female audience.

Hush. Adults are talking.

What are you trying to argue, exactly? If you're arguing that it's hypocritical for Lois to get mad at Clark for lying despite lying herself, these situations aren't exactly identical, and neither of them are framed as completely righteous actions. If you're trying to get offended on behalf of other characters, that's stupid and you just looking for reasons to shit on Lois.

Also, it's not a particularly quirky personality, it's about the same personality as every superhero you know.

Anon
We can all follow the argument you're having with yourself
We're laughing at you because your position is hilariously reductive and ignores the actual progression of the show so you can use that as a flimsy support for a moral judgement no one cares about, least of all the actual show.

This is incredibly sad.

Stop being obtuse, anon, there's a massive difference in both these scenes in their motive and how it plays out. Take the L, and go back to Twitter.

Oops, you're illiterate

>I didn't understand the two separate reply chains anon replied to and that's YOUR fault!

Ironic

>You're the only one emphasizing all her actions as "untrustworthy"
Yep, just me. And all the other anons agreeing with me, that is.
>refusing to give her any benefit of the doubt
Black person, that has been my whole fricking point: there is no reason to believe she'll keep Clark's secret safe, because there is absolutely no indication that she learned anything from this entire incident.
People don't just change a negative aspect of their personality because they got called out for it; that's not how people work.

>I remember when the average user on this site had an IQ above 80
I know it's worse but you're a fricking liar

go back to your containment

hahaha holy shit
all this is literally just you being an angry /misc/ freak
go back

>That is how storytelling and character development often work.
Anon, that's literally bad storytelling. Changing a characters personality due to one singular event while expressly showing that it was no big deal in the end would be like inducing BPD.
>ignoring all their good qualities
Ah yes, like endangering the lives of her friends, forcing her friends to tell her their secrets, putting her friends in uncomfortable situations...
Fricking hell, I'm pretty sure even Clarke would've eventually stopped giving a frick if Lois wasn't so damned hot.

>but that's not her primary character trait.
I think you need to watch the show again, because she's been shown to be untrustworthy since episode 1.
>inb4 oh yeah? give me all the timestamps where she was shown to be untrustworthy then!

>characters developing because of what happens in the story is bad storytelling
God damn, son, you are some kind of moronic

>no argument, as per usual

>All of those are far more major traits for her than lying, but you won't admit that.
No, you're completely right! Now, what does this change? Absolutely jack-shit.
She's still untrustworthy, has been shown to be untrustworthy and the only reason she is "trusted" with Clarke's secret is because she as good as extorted it out of him.
>After all, characters aren't supposed to change their minds so quickly, right?
I get that you're narrow-minded, but holy shit.
The entire "no longer Spider-Man" phase of Peter is supposed to be weird! Even Peter himself is shown to be uncomfortable about the whole situation.
Aunt May's speech was the last push to bring him back.

Allow me to show you

>liar gets introduced
>liar does what they do and start lying
>liar gets called out, liar promises to stop lying
People with either a functional brain or life experience know that what happens next is
>liar starts lying again

again
Please interact with people more.

>That's all on your bias and your cynicism.
Good fricking lord.
Let me guess, you're the type that things world hunger would be solved if we started sharing and caring?

"You're a cynic" isn't an argument.
I wasn't responding to your post with an argument, I am calling you out for the naive moron that you are.

Pray tell, how else would you like me to react to non-arguments?

>If they weren't arguments they wouldn't warrant a reply
Holy shit, I think I did it
I found the dumbest post on Cinemaphile

But by keeping a secret from Lois Clark has shown to be less trustworthy then she is.

But the difference is that Clark was looking to start a relationship with Lois.

This isn't Clark's first or even 5th time hanging out with Lois. He works with her, he's friends with her, he's hoping to take things to the next step.

Not the anon you've been arguing with, but:
>kind
>threatens suicide to manipulate someone. Actual abusive behaviour
No.
And no, her knowing Superman would save her doesn't change jack shit about this.
I'll give you the rest, but calling her kind is an insult to kind people.

>characters developing because of what happens in the story is bad storytelling
God damn, son, you are some kind of moronic

Fricking hell, would it kill you morons to read the second half of the sentence before replying?

"I did" he says, while ignoring the critical fricking part.
I get that you're trolling, but come on now.
Here, I'll repeat it so you can't go
>hurr see you're not interestedin arguing in good faith durr

>while expressly showing that it was no big deal in the end
>while expressly showing that it was no big deal in the end
>while expressly showing that it was no big deal in the end
(meaning that it had no real impact on the characters involved!)

>You could say "lies to get them to go with her
No you can't because you're then understating the severity of the possible consequences. She's a c**t who risks both of their jobs at a minimum to play on a feeling that she doesn't have authority to act on.

Listen, I'm actually on your side but you're making it difficult.

>nitpicking her actions
>lie to coworkers (first conversation ever) about approval for investigating a certain location endangering them or their job completely off all company support because they aren't actually supposed to be there
>nitpicking

And she apologizes for it and then makes a point to not lie to them again.
You keep forgetting that part for some reason.

But Lois never did lie to Clark again while Clark just kept lying to Lois's face.
Clark is the liar here, you're only proving the point that Lois has every right to be mad at Clark for keeping this from her.

>It hand-waved the issue?
Pure unfiltered autism
You literally need closed captions for emotions

See

>via Jimmy's attitude and Clark's reconciliation with both of them
Yeah, like I said. By hand-waving the issue like it didn't matter at all.
>That you apparently need them to literally announce these things to the audience
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I get that you have no rebuttal otherwise, but it's pretty rude, don't you think?
[...]
I really don't want to believe it, but I'm almost beginning to believe that this is seriously what some people think lmao
[...]
[...]
>is this your personal interpretation
She literally lies to the two new interns on the first day of the job. What the frick do you call that besides "untrustworthy"?
And she never gets better. Ergo my "maybe this should be addressed during one of the most critical parts in the show" point.

>Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I get that you have no rebuttal otherwise, but it's pretty rude, don't you think?
As an addendum; I find it quite amusing to see someone with autism accuse others of having autism.

>via Jimmy's attitude and Clark's reconciliation with both of them
Yeah, like I said. By hand-waving the issue like it didn't matter at all.
>That you apparently need them to literally announce these things to the audience
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I get that you have no rebuttal otherwise, but it's pretty rude, don't you think?
[...]
I really don't want to believe it, but I'm almost beginning to believe that this is seriously what some people think lmao
[...]
[...]
>is this your personal interpretation
She literally lies to the two new interns on the first day of the job. What the frick do you call that besides "untrustworthy"?
And she never gets better. Ergo my "maybe this should be addressed during one of the most critical parts in the show" point.

>words in muh mouth!
Pretty sure that's a wiener
Your entire problem is that the whole Clark lied to Lois and Lois got mad thing wasn't resolved, but it was. Directly. In the episode you're complaining about.
What else is one to glean from this than that you needed it to be EVEN MORE explicit?

Not to mention, said bestie also mentioned multiple times that she'd make your secret headline news.

>what actually happened in the show is invalid because I am a shizophrenic cynic
yeah
nah

>Good thing Lois can't do anything wrong and is clearly the victim here.
Why do you think there is a 100% good and 100% bad side to every situation?
Clark wasn't wrong. But neither was Lois. Imagine that.

But Lois is in the wrong for not wanting to build a relationship with a man who refuses to trust her with information that they both know they both already know?

>I literally can't understand how you could think that Lois is even a single percent in the right here.
You're doing it again. Painting out a party that's in the right and a party that's in the wrong.
Both their perspectives makes sense. There doesn't need to be a right and wrong party in this.

That's not a strawman. This thread has close to 400 replies and is very far from the first thread on the subject, I apologise for accidentally lumping you in with those people.

What if I think it was in character and it also makes her a less likeable main character?

Just because it was in character doesn't mean it was the only possible outcome.

It means Lois jumping off a building and getting mad Clark had his secret makes sense for her established character, but there were other ways to write it that would also be in character while keeping her endearing (assuming the writers wanted that). I didn't know what route the writers would go, thus I didn't know what I was in for.

I'd feel that requires Clark to be less of a bone head.

You could easily have changed the moral in the last episode from "you have to trust your friends" to "if they don't want to say, then don't force them". Then instead of treating Clark like a coward, Jimmy would come off as mature while Luiz would feel like a jerk and apologize.

Maybe. I think they could've done something like ep 1 where Lois puts herself in harms way and Clark tries to save her, but this time he can't. Maybe a bad guy follows Clark back to the roof and attacks him there. Clark tries fighting back but can't due to hiding his identity or kryptonite or some new tech, doesn't really matter. Lois sneaks up and manages to push the bad guy off the roof, they were focused on the superpowered alien and not the regular human. But Lois falls too, and Clark has to make a split second decision whether or not he reveals his identity to catch and save her, he obviously does. Bad guy plummets to their death (or maybe they're just incapacitated and get to relay Clark's identity later on, idk). The roof argument still happens. The end result is similar, Lois is mad at Clark for not trusting her and putting both of them in danger, Clark gets mad at Lois for not trusting him and going overboard on her investigation. Only this way Lois doesn't have to act like a manipulative butthole and Clark doesn't have to act like an oblivious moron.

I get it, more or less, but that's a bad way to put it if you're criticising her character. It was at the very least a predictable outcome.

I wasn't criticizing her character, I just started posting in this thread. You're right that it was a predictable outcome and that's not necessarily a bad thing but in this case it wasn't satisfying, personally.

Yes, it's my opinion. I never said "objectively" or that what I said was a fact, what the frick are you talking about? Of course I'm talking about how my version show would be different, that's the whole point.

You could easily have changed the moral in the last episode from "you have to trust your friends" to "if they don't want to say, then don't force them". Then instead of treating Clark like a coward, Jimmy would come off as mature while Luiz would feel like a jerk and apologize.

That's also an issue here: really cliche storytelling. It makes this show more disposable than the writers realize.

I wanted a good show that Cinemaphile would enjoy, along with some good shipping and a main pair that could get into the Elite 8 of this year's Mr. and Ms. Cinemaphile.

Also I wanted a show that had moments and characters that could compete in this year's ToonamiERA awards.

A show that Cinemaphile doesn't get autistic about and bash for going off the rails or being "too SJW". Something like Over The Garden Wall, or Teen Titans.

Anon, you know this is an impossibility. OTGW gets shitposters now. I haven't paid attention to how TT's faring but it's corn fed weebshit so it can't be immune.

But it's not good enough for the Toonami block. All we've had this year is some terrible Shippuden filler, the second half of Punk Hazard, a Gendy show that somehow managed to be worse paced and written than Fena was two years ago, and El Hermano.

>this shit AGAIN
see

I'll give you context
>Lois and Clark meet-cute
>Lois says some dumb shit about exposing Superman because Reporter
>Later lois suspects Clark is Superman
>Clark is bad at lying and gives it away without realizing
>Lois pushes him to tell her and forces him to reveal himself by jumping off the Daily Planet, something basically every iteration of Lois has done
>He saves her and they get mad at each other - her because he lied and she feels betrayed because they were falling in love and she doesn't know if that was real, him because she pushed him to tell her when he clearly didn't want to (because of the dumb shit she said)
>next episode they both missed a trip with Jimmy and he went missing
>there's a power-dampening area they go through
>Clark takes a bunch of lasers for Lois without knowing if he would be able to survive - Lois realizes he does love her
>At the end of the episode Jimmy reveals that he always knew Clark was Superman since way before the series but didn't want to push it
>they all reconcile and all is good - Supes understands his secret is safe with them, Lois understands Clark does love her, Jimmy forgives them for being self-involved for a bit

[...]
Holy shit, girls, you're both stupid as frick
The show does not portray Lois as in the right for jumping off a building
The show isn't even interested in "who was right" (spoiler: no one), it's interested in the emotional dynamic between the characters. They both feel betrayed. That's supposed to be the takeaway.

What in the living frick happened to make you moronic kids totally media illiterate

Hasn't worked for you yet

A basic b***h Karen who gets mad at her coffee missing their pumpkin spice whip cream is selfish. A woman ready to endanger herself and others for clout & fame and then act like she's the victim is textbook psychopathic behaviour that will get people killed.

>t goes beyond selfishness and into Lois being a narcissistic sociopath that the writers want you to support over Clark that makes it immoral.
This your mental illness speaking, not the show.

Anon, you're projecting. Go take your lithium suppository before posting again.

>States she's out to expose Superman as the headline of the decade for her career.
>That's not clout/fame chasing
Anon are you sure you watched the show? Don't kneejerk defend something just to be a Cinemaphilentrarian nugay, you won't fit in that way.

NTA, but what the frick do you think journalism is? Some sort of holy job performed for the good of the community?

[...]
>Journalism isn't just sensationalist backstabbing nonsese
>google "fourth estate"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS

Your personal opinion of current journalists isn't relevant. Obviously famous comic book character Lois fricking Lane is sincere about her journalism.

anon are you serious
google "fourth estate" you absolute clown

>Journalism isn't just sensationalist backstabbing nonsese
>google "fourth estate"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS

Wrong clip, but Episode is Tempus Fugitive, Season 2 ep 18 of Lois and Clark. She slaps him and goes off on him. That clip does show how quick Lois is to berate him even in a situation where he has to chose between hiding his identity or doing something questionable though.

Comic Lois damn near called off the entire marriage when she learned about it

>when your DP fantasies go up in smoke

To be fair why the frick would Superman not consider that? Like dude you're essentially initiating an affair at your own expense.

Okay but then just don't lead the person on with your downtime personality. Stick to the over-the-top one. There's no reason you need to come at both angles. Just pick, until you're ready to reveal the truth.

I don't understand the bit you're doing since secrets and lies were obviously the USSR's jam. Nobody hears plaintive complaints about secrets and thinks, oh, the Soviet Union.

Well, fair enough, let it not be said that I've never made a flat joke.

I'm asking for your examples first.

Anon I need to know your examples first so I don't waste my time.

I'm asking for your examples first.

Holy shit, girls, you're both stupid as frick
The show does not portray Lois as in the right for jumping off a building
The show isn't even interested in "who was right" (spoiler: no one), it's interested in the emotional dynamic between the characters. They both feel betrayed. That's supposed to be the takeaway.

What in the living frick happened to make you moronic kids totally media illiterate

Terminally online and Culture war Politics.

Facts?

"troony" and "moron" are completely normal, everyday slurs.

Trying too hard to fit in is how you fit in.
If you're not violently angry and misogynistic, what the frick are you doing on /misc/?!

Sure they did. But like you said, they didn't have Cinemaphile, so they just told their friends she was hot but kind of a c**t.

>if he wants to start dating her
What the frick? These are things you reveal after like a month or two of dating, when you''re sure that you two are compatible with each other
How the frick do you think relationships work?

>unless Cinemaphile is more childish than I previously assumed.
Bubbline.

When people in mass have the same public opinion, it might be a decent idea to listen to what they're saying. It's ignorant to simply say 'that group of people is wrong, because their opinion isn't mine!' You're not even defending your argument, rather lambasting that I have to be wrong because I'm stupid because I disagree with you and instead of offering a rebuttal tell me to find it myself through the words of other people. I'm fine if you legitimately have a different view of the scene, but you're just shutting down conversation because you can't accept people might disagree with you.

In Mass and En Mass are interchangeable within English, I just prefer the simpler English for sake of discussion rather than having to be hoity-toity to prove how smarter I am as I nitpick language of others instead of talking about the topic at hand.
Get back on topic, talk about Superman, or shut the frick up, friend.

Says the nerd who comes to a discussion about Superman to police people's language

"Follish" isn't even a word.

In Mass and En Mass are interchangeable within English, I just prefer the simpler English for sake of discussion rather than having to be hoity-toity to prove how smarter I am as I nitpick language of others instead of talking about the topic at hand.
Get back on topic, talk about Superman, or shut the frick up, friend.

>Cinemaphile shitposters
>"people in mass"
you mean en masse you dumb motherfricker
and no

When people in mass have the same public opinion, it might be a decent idea to listen to what they're saying. It's ignorant to simply say 'that group of people is wrong, because their opinion isn't mine!' You're not even defending your argument, rather lambasting that I have to be wrong because I'm stupid because I disagree with you and instead of offering a rebuttal tell me to find it myself through the words of other people. I'm fine if you legitimately have a different view of the scene, but you're just shutting down conversation because you can't accept people might disagree with you.

Says the nerd who comes to a discussion about Superman to police people's language

goddamn, how embarassing
bone apple tea!

Why do people double down when they could just look this shit up in seconds? Minor misuses of language don't matter, it's doubling down that makes you look stupid.

No, it's not at all a proper usage. En Masse doesn't even translate to "in mass," it translates to "as a group"

I'd argue that super strength and literally fricking flying are two very different things, but that would be nitpicking.