What a moron
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
What a moron
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
here's your lois lane bro
lois does this shit all the time, I don't know why it has just now became a big problem because of this show.
People don't read comics, or watch other superman media, come in to this show.
Honestly anyone complaining about this hasn't passively absorbed superman media in the past 20+ years.
People don't seem to even watch the shows anymore. Did you see how many people were b***hing about SJW agendas when Brain and Mallah were in last episode?
The majority of the planet has a victim complex.
Because she was treated as the victim here
The problem is what came after this. But, Lois jumping off a building to expose/get superman to save her is 100% inline with Lois.
Lying is bad anon.
He genuinely believes she was. You see this all the time: if a character misbehaves and doesn't receive immediate karmic comeuppance or a stern shit-talking from another character acting as the author's mouthpiece, Cinemaphilemrades think it must mean full tacit endorsement of their actions. They want that comic book divine justice, no bad deed unpunished.
Your truth is wasted on these Cinemaphile fools
This. So much this. Except it's not always limited to Cinemaphile, but it's very prominent here. People unironically get confused when the smart character they can identify with doesn't spell out how they should feel about something, and assume the worst because they love getting outraged and b***hing.
>This. So much this.
You need to get your face shoved through a window, you utter homosexual.
Use your logic and reason to own him, anon! Calling people a homosexual and wishing them facial injuries has a low rate of return.
You two sound like you were the bullied kid back in high school who thought he was friends with the cool kids lmao
You sound like you're projecting.
I'm entirely indifferent to being insulted but I genuinely don't understand how that insult would be relevant if true.
Well, Superman is the one who gets scolded for hiding his deepest personal secret from someone he hasn't known so long, so they might have a point.
>Every character is the voice of the author!
Moron.
>Characters are not the means through which the narrative expresses itself!
Moron.
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
Ah yes, the Joker and Lois Lane are both exactly the same in terms of sympathetic intent. You fricking dunce.
Why? What if Luthor scolded him?
But she DID receive a stern talking to but that anon in question is just looking to bait morons it's best not to engage him.
It's usually a joke or results in her failing. The way it was done here was just way off.
Was the first time it happened in something that was popular while the internet was as big as it is?
misogyny
Jumping off the roof is fine; the entire episode made it clear that she knew for certain that Clark was Superman and she'd even given him several chances to come clean.
It's her reaction of 'I can't believe you lied to me' that everyone's mad about, because Clark totally has completely legitimate reasons to keep his identity secret, which he brings up.
If anything, the next episode makes her look even worse, because Superman tells Jimmy the truth and his response is 'yeah, I know, dude, I've known for seven years. But this secret is clearly super personal for you and I understand why you wouldn't tell anyone; so I just never brought it up and hoped you'd trust me enough to bear it with you one day.'
>'yeah, I know, dude, I've known for seven years. But this secret is clearly super personal for you and I understand why you wouldn't tell anyone; so I just never brought it up and hoped you'd trust me enough to bear it with you one day.'
Based Jimmy
See, my issue with this storyline is the episode ends so soon after that, and it’s centered around the gay couple instead of the main trio. And then the friends are cool with each other without any of them properly apologizing. That’s the true issue, not Lois being a brat.
Neither Jimmy, Mallah or Brain knew about so there was no reason for it to come up in the A-plot. Clark, Lois and Jimmy understood each other's attitudes at the end and made up. Did you really want a big mea culpa for the main plot of an episode? Sounds boring.
Character development is never boring
If Lois realized that the reason Clark didn't want to share the biggest secret of his life with her was because she's untrustworthy and decides to change that part about herself, you could have had an amazing episode.
She's not untrustworthy though, Clark is.
I wouldn't pick untrustworthy as the word. Reckless, selfish. Lois finding out Clark is Superman is always going to be a bit rough, given their characters. I don't see Clark getting angry or Lois getting weepily apologetic as an improvement.
This is such ridiculous nitpicking
Do you need the characters to literally announce their motivations at all times?
>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".
>Lois is an untrustworthy individual.
Then so is Clark, only difference is that Clark is less trustworthy then Lois.
>Then so is Clark
You lost me.
What has Clark done to be untrustworthy?
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!
Anon
The show did directly address that and did address Lois being wrong via Jimmy's attitude and Clark's reconciliation with both of them
That you apparently need them to literally announce these things to the audience is nitpicking autism
To put it another way:
It did exactly what you're asking, but apparently in too subtle and realistic a manner for you.
>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.
>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?
She hauls them out on an unauthorised job, pretending she has permission, jeopardising their internship. I don't otherwise agree with him but in the first episode she was absolutely an butthole, Clark calls her out on it.
Oh, so it is just you nitpicking her actions.
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?
>assuming the worst out of nowhere
I think I see where the issue lies now.
You people just completely lack in real-world experience.
Makes sense, considering where we are.
>can't read the emotional context in a cartoon for children
>"you guys just don't have any real world experience"
No, it's okay, anon.
Keep believing in your fantasy scenarios, real life isn't worth it anyway.
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.
In my opinion, reality has much subtler cues than in fiction, because you can both condition people to look out for cues in fiction (stereotypes) and you can make the cues as obvious as you'd like.
>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 to make it look remotely bad
Yes, nitpicking. Let me guess, investigating that location turned out to be important and kickstarted an adventure, right? People in these stories do reckless things in the name of truth and justice all the time. From what I'm hearing, it's even acknowledged as flawed in-universe, so I see no reason to b***h about it.
>>has to describe it in a really specific way
>LIE TO COWORKERS
>ENDANGER THEM AND THEIR JOBS
Yeah that's pretty specific. If I was reciting the plot I wouldn't be all "and then Lois ENDANGERS them", I'd say something like "she pretends to have permission to get them to go with her".
>we didn't kill those people, we laid them to rest
NTA, but your argument is moronic
You're the one comparing some small casual recklessness expected of a plucky hero to killing people.
>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
>she pretends to have permission to get them to go with her
>not specific
You could say "lies to get them to go with her" if you want, it still doesn't sound like a horrible crime.
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 something a headstrong protagonist would do.
...which is still no justification for ANYTHING we're talking about
Seriously, you're either trolling or are heavily autistic
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.
No, don't you understand anon?
Characters aren't allowed to make mistakes or grow and change
>which is still no justification for ANYTHING we're talking about
NTA but yeah it is.
>It's part of the genre.
What the frick are you even talking about at this point? Am I having a stroke?
The cartoon is based on realism with aspects of fantasy. Therefore you'd expect social norms and interactions to be akin to real ones.
Therefore, there is absolutely no justification for endangering the lives and livelihoods of two interns, no matter how "quirky" your personality may be.
>The cartoon is based on realism
Hahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>be american
>can't read
Many such cases. Sad!
>The cartoon is based on realism with aspects of fantasy
Are you going to be okay after the
Mister Mxyzptlk episode?
It impresses me to see so many people who have been taught to speak and read English their entire childhood and yet are still incapable of actually understanding it.
Fascinating, really.
>(vague catty response that deliberately avoids the subject matter)
Wow this show really does have a female audience.
>make statement
>dumb american misunderstands statement
>point out how moronic the average american is
>american seethes at post
The global economical collapse can't come soon enough.
Hush. Adults are talking.
>I am shit at conveying my thoughts and that's everybody else's problem
We can only respond to the dumb shit you write, not the dumb shit you think
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.
>What are you trying to argue, exactly?
Allow me to break down this argument
>lois endangered the lives and livelihoods of two interns because she is a untrustworthy individual
>>yeah, but lois is an untrustworthy individual, that's just who she is
>okay sure, but that doesn't justify her actions in an-
>>the genre dictates lois to be untrustworthy, otherwise the plot wouldn't continue
>the genre is still based on realism, so that's still no justification for her actions
And at this point the average am*rican stopped understanding my arguments because of foreign concepts like "realism" and "fantasy aspects".
God forbid I compare their take on the narrative dicatating the social norms to absurdism.
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.
That's a lot of words for
>i have no argument
I think you quoted the wrong posts, because those two are on opposite sides
Oops, you're illiterate
Ah, an autist.
Newsflash bucko: other people can't read your mind.
Posting random images to say something doesn't work without further context.
>I didn't understand the two separate reply chains anon replied to and that's YOUR fault!
...anon, you do realize that you're the one mixing the two up, right?
Ironic
You're the only one emphasizing all her actions as "untrustworthy" and refusing to give her any benefit of the doubt because Lois fricked your dog or something.
>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.
>there is no reason to believe she'll keep Clark's secret safe
you mean except her literally saying she would never expose him like that literally fives seconds after this happens? Or keeping the secret in the next episode despite being pissed at him?
God damn, kid, try actually watching the show.
This entire thread has been absolutely pathetic. An exercise in the dumbest kind of rhetoric.
I remember when the average user on this site had an IQ above 80
>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
>you mean except her literally saying she would never expose him like that literally fives seconds after this happens?
Cue
with the whole "lacking in real-world experience" statement.
Liars will continue to lie after they're called out on their lies and thieves will continue to steal after they've been caught stealing.
It's never a matter of if, but a matter of when. If you believe otherwise then you're nothing but a naive dumbass, severely lacking in real-world experience.
And now comes the
>b-b-b-b-b-but it's fiction!!1!
To which I point you to
After which you reply with something nonsensical because you've never heard of concepts such as "realism" and "absurdism".
Seriously, it's like you haven't even bothered reading the thread.
go back to your containment
>no arguments
Not that I was expecting any.
hahaha holy shit
all this is literally just you being an angry /misc/ freak
go back
>And all the other anons agreeing with me, that is.
The other anons seething at a fictional character for petty reasons.
>People don't just change a negative aspect of their personality because they got called out for it; that's not how people work.
That is how storytelling and character development often work. You're just being disingenuous, assuming the worst about a character and ignoring all their good qualities out of personal bias.
>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.
It's "changing a character's personality" only if you define Lois' personality by her lying. Which I guess you do, since you have such a hate-boner against her, but that's not her primary character trait.
>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!
>no argument, as per usual
>I think you need to watch the show again, because she's been shown to be untrustworthy since episode 1.
She has plenty of good character traits. Brave, assertive, kind, cares about justice. All of those are far more major traits for her than lying, but you won't admit that. An average case of a person unable to see past their bias and trying to dress it up in something rational. Did you also b***h when Peter put on his suit back on in Spider-Man 2 after a conversation with Aunt May? After all, characters aren't supposed to change their minds so quickly, right?
>No you can't because you're then understating the severity of the possible consequences.
If I'm reciting an episode, I'm reciting what happens in the plot. Not "the possible consequences". Superman's very existence has a shit ton of possible consequences, as is any superhero's. Should I go full Alan Moore while describing any cape story?
>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.
Well then, I can say Lois is generally a good person, so she just needed a small push to not lie anymore 🙂
Allow me to show you
again
Please interact with people more.
That's all on your bias and your cynicism.
And Fantastic Four does a ton of property damage and fights the army in their first appearance. And all superheroes are literally violent vigilante criminals breaking the law without accountability. But you don't give a shit about that, or any other genre conventions, because it's not a contemporary new thing you can b***h about and blow innocent genre tropes out of proportion.
>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?
Not exactly countering the argument that you're an unreasonable cynic
"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.
>NOT AN ARGUMENT NOT AN ARGUMENT
That's not a magic spell
Pray tell, how else would you like me to react to non-arguments?
If they weren't arguments they wouldn't warrant a reply
You use "not an argument" as if it's a magic spell that erases their text and makes it so no one else can read their posts
Don't you feel even the slightest bit of shame?
>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
I guess that's a "no" on having any concept of shame
Enjoy your pointless internet fights
But by keeping a secret from Lois Clark has shown to be less trustworthy then she is.
Keeping personal secrets a secret despite someone else wanting to know them isn't being untrustworthy.
Are you untrustworthy because you won't post your bank account details? Of course not.
But the difference is that Clark was looking to start a relationship with Lois.
I can understand the lack of understanding here because of where we are, but secrets aren't exactly shared on the first day of dating someone.
The first few months are exploratory; you figure out if you actually like each other, learn about each others preferences, etc.
Once you're sure you actually want to be with the other person (and don't just want to have sex), then you start with the secrets, family visits, etc.
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.
>he's hoping to take things to the next step.
Yeah, exactly. They're not even really dating yet.
Just because you would show off your dakimakura collection on the second date with no hesitation doesn't mean that's a normal thing to expect from the person you're dating.
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.
Clark left her no other choice.
>characters developing because of what happens in the story is bad storytelling
God damn, son, you are some kind of moronic
TV characters usually do change their behaviour due to one singular event. There's limited screen time and if they do the same thing over and over that's what will stick in the audience's mind, not their realistic character writing.
Fricking hell, would it kill you morons to read the second half of the sentence before replying?
I did, but it's not terribly clear. "It would be like inducing BPD" is some nonsense I lack context to understand, if any exists, and the event having no serious consequences being a reason it's unrealistic for characters to change their minds seemed like an uncharitable interpretation so I skipped it.
"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!)
So which, did it change their personality or did it have 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.
>You're being reductive!
>Continues to be reductive
Clown show
Listen, I'm actually on your side but you're making it difficult.
psssst
Anon got his shit pushed in by
so now he's arguing with himself
just close the thread and let him shizo out
>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
>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
And she apologizes for it and then makes a point to not lie to them again.
You keep forgetting that part for some reason.
>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
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.
Why are you asking things about a show you apparently haven't watched?
>It hand-waved the issue?
Pure unfiltered autism
You literally need closed captions for emotions
Anon really out here needing Lois to say out loud "OH WOW JIMMY KNEW BUT DIDN'T PUSH CLARK FOR GOOD REASONS AND CLARK PROVED HE DOES CARE ABOUT ME AND KEPT THINGS FROM ME OUT OF CONCERN SO NOW I UNDERSTAND"
See
>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.
>You're putting words in my mouth!
Close, I'm calling you media illiterate
Not understanding what I'm saying is just icing on the cake
>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?
>It's literally made clear in the first goddamned episode: Lois is an untrustworthy individual.
Is this actually part of the narrative, or is this your personal interpretation you're trying to pass of as fact?
It literally fundamentally changes the intent of the narrative, how the frick does that qualify as nitpicking?
It doesn't, you're just too moronic to follow the extremely basic emotional through-lines that are already there
You should probably stick to something that matches your emotional maturity and EQ. Have you tried Bluey?
Your reaction is pure autism instead of proper media analysis. Characters aren't robots. Look up storytelling. Look up drama.
>fiction isn't fiction
>look up fiction, look up fiction
huh
While I understand this perspective, I think it's a bit flawed. Reminder that the whole point of the first episode is that it is wrong to lie to your friends and that trust is fundamental to any friendship. Lois even has a moment where she realizes her lie was predicated on a lack of trust of Clark, since she denies him the opportunity to make a choice. This is further compounded by the acknowledgement that Clark, being the good person that he is, would likely have helped anyways. Though Clark does have good reason to have his own secrets, it is hypocritical and it makes sense that Lois would be angry, especially since she gave him multiple opportunities to come clean in that very episode. This is why she says "did you really think I'd do that to you?" when he expressed concern over her publishing his secrets. He denied her the opportunity to make a choice and that was based on a sense of distrust he felt for Lois. This is further exacerbated by the fact that Lois confided in Clark her hatred of liars due to her father constantly lying to her about very important things. These combined make Lois reaction a bit more understandable.
Clark's position is understandable, though flawed, and I think the show demonstrates that by the fact that he never really apologizes, but does understand the need to trust his friends and the value of believing in the best of people, that the world can be an accepting place where he can live.
That being said, one could still, understandably, argue that Lois was overreacting. After all, why should she get this mad at clark specifically. Jimmy didn't get this mad. This, I think, ignores some pretty key points. First, Jimmy figured out that Clark had superpowers in their very first interaction. Because of this, at the very least on Jimmy's end, their relationship wasn't predicated on some lie, rather framed as a sensitive matter that shouldn't be broached.
>no you don't get it dude, clarke HAD to reveal his biggest secret! he just had to!
Not sure how you got that from his post, I don't think Clark HAD to reveal anything. That was just my perspectives on why the characters acted the way they did and why certain comparisons miss the mark.
>I don't think Clark HAD to reveal anything.
You don't, the other anon does:
>Though Clark does have good reason to have his own secrets, it is hypocritical and it makes sense that Lois would be angry, especially since she gave him multiple opportunities to come clean in that very episode.
Because naturally you HAVE to tell your besties your lifelong secrets!
Not to mention, said bestie also mentioned multiple times that she'd make your secret headline news.
Now compare that to Lois and Clark. Lois never understood that Clark had superpowers until she figured out much later in their relationship. Because of this, as she explained, she was worried that their entire relationship was predicated on a lie, and that clark only cared for Lois in so far as she was a good cover story. Imagine, if you will, a woman finding out her crush only hung out with her because she served as a good beard and he was fricking a bunch of men on the side. Someone may retort that they barely know each other, but it's pretty clear that these two where romantically interested in one another from their very first meeting and clearly liked and cared for each other quite a bit. It really isn't an exaggeration to say that this is basically a love at first sight kind of story.
Furthermore, the context in which Jimmy discovered Clark's secret was in a relatively low stakes situation, whereas when Lois puts two and two together, it's a much more dire circumstance. Reminder that right before Lois jumps off the building, Clark meets her while being covered in wounds and gives off the most baldfaced lie you can imagine. The context in which they figured out his secret, their opinions on keeping secrets and telling lies, and the stage in their respective relationships in which they figured out said secret were all different and ultimately that makes this comparison moot.
Still very valid to disliked that actual execution though, I certainly have my own problems. They should've reconciled by having a bunch of uncensored sex, but that's not what we got.
>It's her reaction of 'I can't believe you lied to me' that everyone's mad about, because Clark totally has completely legitimate reasons to keep his identity secret, which he brings up.
Yes. So isn't it then telling that Lois isn't actually upset over Clark not telling her the truth at the beginning, but upset over how he still refused to even after she knew that he knew that she knew. And he still couldn't admit it. Thinking, inaccurately, that she'd use it to ruin his life.
Yes. Clark's got legitimate reasons for wanting to share his secret. But that doesn't mean that Lois didn't have legitimate reasons for feeling separated, distrusted, and disconnected with Clark. In spite of superficial appearances appearing otherwise.
>that doesn't mean that Lois didn't have legitimate reasons for feeling separated, distrusted, and disconnected with Clark
Yeah, Jimmy had such a harsh time...
Oh, no, wait, he knew the value of waiting for your friends to be ready and willing to share their secrets with you.
Yeah, and Lois learned a valuable lesson from him saying so and reconciled with Superman
Have you tried actually watching the show you're b***hing about?
See
>what actually happened in the show is invalid because I am a shizophrenic cynic
yeah
nah
Let him go, he'll go out of his way to interpret things the worst possible way. His kind is unable to move past their biases and engage with something in good faith.
Jimmy and Lois can both react in different ways and both of those reactions are equally valid.
Jimmy kind of isn't Lois.
And also. Contrary to what the fujos wants to believe. Jimmy, good friends as they are, isn't trying to frick or build a family with Clark.
If Jimmy made it clear to Clark that he knew and he pleaded with Clark to tell the truth as well, and Clark still refused to admit it. Jimmy might have taken it less well.
It's not quite the same situation.
If Jimmy did that, he'd be an butthole.
Good thing Lois can't do anything wrong and is clearly the victim here.
>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.
Because forcing someone to share their secrets is 100% wrong.
And no, Lois' feelings getting hurt due to Clarke not wanting to share them does not make him in the wrong.
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?
Not at all. Lois would be 100% right if she decided that that was a dealbreaker and stepped away.
Instead she kept putting pressure on Clark to reveal his secret and THROWS HERSELF OFF A FRICKING BUILDING
All to force Clarke to reveal the secret that he wasn't even ready to reveal to his oldest and bestest friend.
I literally can't understand how you could think that Lois is even a single percent in the right here.
>inb4 only the not at all part is quoted as if i conceded the whole point
>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.
>Both their perspectives makes sense.
They do not. Saying that it does, doesn't make it so.
>we aren't particularly bothered that she didn't explicitly apologise.
Why are you acting as if that is what this is about?
I get that you want to "win" this argument, but at the very least don't make up strawman to argue against
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.
Nobody thinks she was in the right. Well I'm sure some people do but bad opinions are easy to come by, they're not making noise about it in the same way you are. We think it was in character, and unlike you we aren't particularly bothered that she didn't explicitly apologise.
What if I think it was in character and it also makes her a less likeable main character?
Personally I'd say fair enough but that in that case you presumably knew what you were in for.
Just because it was in character doesn't mean it was the only possible outcome.
What the frick does that even mean
It's fiction, it happens how it was written
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.
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 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.
>the way they did it objectively makes her not endearing!
Anon have you played the Binky's facts vs opinions game?
This literally boils down to "Well MY show would be different!"
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.
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.
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.
That's also an issue here: really cliche storytelling. It makes this show more disposable than the writers realize.
I feel like we have very different expectations for this show both going in and going forward
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 good show that Cinemaphile would enjoy
What? I mean... what?
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.
So one that isn't popular enough to get shitposters or one that ended over a decade ago before Cinemaphile was...this.
Have you tried Centaurworld?
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.
>Also I wanted a show that had moments and characters that could compete in this year's ToonamiERA awards.
The show is good enough for that though.
Some just have a hateboner for it.
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.
>network block!
literally doesn't matter
network TV is dead
>this shit AGAIN
see
Why don't you try screaming louder? Maybe then your horseshit will come true!
Hasn't worked for you yet
idk seems like a realistic depiction of men and women to me
>Trope is good cause it's from le past XD
You people are fricking unbearable.
Youtubers are telling them to get mad, so they are.
Oh, I don't need a youtuber to tell me to get mad.
He put a lot of effort into that fake arm.
holy fricking shit that's funny
Mostly casuals, a few morons and a lot of people that intentionally just want to shipost the show for whatever reason by it company war or anything else.
Lois strenght is being fearless, headstrong and caring more about finding out the truth than anything else, that usually makes her a hero but can also be her character flaw that can lead to conflicts like that scene. In many ways she is like a classic Marvel superhero.
>Shillgays try to defend Lois going full Amber From the Invincible Show
>Muh Casuals & You've Never Read Supes Comics
>Pic Very Related
I hope Zazlav prolapsing your bunghole was worth it. Even old comics treated her like a brat and not some sad woobie sue to shame Clark over it.
So your problem is Lois isn't so much threw herself off the building but the fact that she's mad at Clark for lying to her.
>Joke
The joke is taken in jest and makes Lois look like a buffoon and a brat. It's wacky, irreverent, and shows immaturity in Lois. It's less immoral and more about proving this is wrong and she gets punished for it.
>Plot
Lois trying to get it for a scoop and then shaming Clark for saving her and not admitting his identity lile she's the victim and not the perpetrator. It goes beyond selfishness and into Lois being a narcissistic sociopath that the writers want you to support over Clark that makes it immoral.
Oh look it's that shill again, mad that they outed themselves as a fake oldgay.
>Both try to guilt their "boyfriend" for keeping a secret identity when they know people are after them and their loved ones.
>Both try to make it look like their boyfriend is bad and they're the victim.
>Worse yet, the writers want you to take their side over Clark/Mark's.
At least Lois didn't try to hook up with someone right after shitting on him like Amber did but Lois has also made it clear she'd out Superman for her own selfish gain but still acts like Clark is wromg to mistrust her with this knowledge. Again anon, it seems like you don't read comics or even watch the show you're defending. It's okay to be Zazlav's little bottom b***h shill, just be honest and avatargay your Snoo on your posts next time.
>it goes beyond selfishness.
How does it go beyond selfishness?
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.
Anon, you're projecting. Go take your lithium suppository before posting again.
>A woman ready to endanger herself and others for clout & fame
She's not doing it for clout and fame though.
>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.
>That's not clout/fame chasing
It's not, it's journalism.
NTA, but what the frick do you think journalism is? Some sort of holy job performed for the good of the community?
anon are you serious
google "fourth estate" you absolute clown
Your personal opinion of current journalists isn't relevant. Obviously famous comic book character Lois fricking Lane is sincere about her journalism.
You do know Journalism isn't just sensationalist backstabbing nonsese out of TMZ & Kotaku right? If you're a twitshit or redditor then I can see your confusion but stop subbing to yellow journalism & shock jock nonsense.
>Journalism isn't just sensationalist backstabbing nonsese
>google "fourth estate"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HOLY SHIT
YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS
>i am 12 and what is this
glad we could end this terrible terrible discussion by calling you a child and being accurate
seems to happen a lot around here
>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.
Did you just wake up
oh look it's that schizo again
>going full Amber
Nothing like Amber and accurate to the comics, also you just copied those images from the other thread, people prove you wrong, you change the argument to another bullshit and try to use the pics to prove your point
Right down to landing in produce.
Did she get up and get mad at Clark for not revealing his identity to her and make herself ro be a victim of Clark's distrust? I don't think she did, which is the point so many shills don't get.
Objectively speaking Clark is lying so he is being dishonest.
In Lois and Clark Lois finds out in due to a time traveler, and she goes off on him in the same manner.
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.
Her reaction from that reveal.
Comic Lois damn near called off the entire marriage when she learned about it
It was especially rough in the comics because she actually struggled with loving both of them and Clark actually pursuing her as Clark, which made her anger a bit more understandable.
>when your DP fantasies go up in smoke
>implying his super speed can't effectively make up the difference
Your God is too small
To be fair why the frick would Superman not consider that? Like dude you're essentially initiating an affair at your own expense.
Insecurity can be a hell of a thing to deal with, even for Superman. And from a narrative point we have the Black Cat/Early Catwoman example for someone being unable to love the real identity over the heroic one, so it was a legit fear. Though at least he wasn't as moronic as Jessica/Jem was about it.
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.
This is the right way to go about it, though I give Clark slack for the fact that this is Lois and going with the over-the-top one can put her at risk due to villains attempting to use her as leverage.
>Superman always
>Implies this isn't her first time
Yes and Lois is treated like a brat/idiot for it and not some teary eyed, "you betrayed me" asshat. Again shill, what don't you understamd?
This Lois is hotter too
You know you're going to get your family assassinated now, right?
Just because she does it all the time doesn't mean it's good.
She was treated like the victim instead of a manipulating b***h.
because chuds don't read comics or watch cartoons
they troll youtube for clips they can meme about to get (you)'s to fill the gaping void of human contact in their lives
The event itself was bad but its the other stuff around it that makes her look more like a c**t.
>When they first meet she lies to him and puts both him and Jimmy at risk with little care
>Does this more than once
>Fastforward to Clark about to tell her the secret
>"LOL frick Superman that shifty bastard! I am SO gonna spill all his secrets lmao! Sorry what were you gonna say?"
>Cut to roof incident
>WTF CLARK WHY DIDNT YOU TELL ME / WHY DID YOU LIE TO ME? HOW COULD YOU THINK I WOUKD DO THAT STUFF I LITERALLY SAID I WOULD DO!
>Lying jerk! Its fine when I lie though and bring you into dangerous situations for a scoop though!
>Well frick you I'm not telling you stuff about me now!
>When they first meet she lies to him and puts both him and Jimmy at risk with little care
To which she apologizes which is something you neglect to mention.
Why? Because you want people to be outraged so you can keep shitposting.
>To which she apologizes
Thats fine. Doesnt mean she gets to act high and mighty about Clark "lying" for far better reasons
It kinda does because in this instance clark was beingba hypocrite because he was the one who raised up the morality of being a liar.
It's not a lie, it's a secret! If I was diagnosed with Cancer and wanted to not tell my friends until after a few more tests and surgeries, am I lying to them!?
da, comrade
all secrets are lies in disguise and lies are the tools of capitalists
you aren't a capitalist, are you, comrade?
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.
>secrets and lies were obviously the USSR's jam
Only in the upper echelon. The plebeians weren't allowed to have secrets. That's the joke.
Well, fair enough, let it not be said that I've never made a flat joke.
Yes, admittedly justifiably. It's marginally better to dissemble than to lie because you aren't actually feeding them false information, but only cowards quibble about the difference.
Its because the show treats Clark like he is wrong and that Lois' following b***h behavior was okay. Clark had every reason to keep it a secret from her and she was a hypocrite about "muh lying"
>Its because the show treats Clark like he is wrong
They don't tho.
It's a little hard to keep the hate train going when Lois and Clark already made up.
Culture warriors don't read comics but love to complain about how the newest comic-related thing is literally killing the West
You are mentally ill.
It's almost always made to make her look foolish.
No it's not.
Get those examples out.
Every one I've seen seems to be executed with the intent of making her like a fool.
How many have you seen and more importantly which ones are thoses?
No examples?
I'm asking for your examples first.
I literally asked you for examples first, what do you mean?
Anon I need to know your examples first so I don't waste my time.
Both of you give your examples to me first. Then I will judge if you are worthy of examples.
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
Yeah but my point is that she's not in the wrong either. Her feelings about Clark are valid but I'm not viewing this is as a zero sum game where either Clark or Lois won the moral argument game.
Terminally online and Culture war Politics.
kek
because women are encouraged to act like massive b***hes and to treat men like garbage nowadays
>nowadays
As opposed to when? The good ol' fricking days of the Golden and Silver Age when it was considered normal for a woman to flirt with other guys to make her boyfriend "prove" his love somehow? I wouldn't be surprised if this was a plot in Superman comics more that a few times, by the way.
Human society has had more phases than just the boomer age, you know.
Yeah but usually Superman creatively saves her in a way that it doesn't make it obvious.
Lois Lane was always considered a c**t, she was always considered a GIANT c**t, but no one complained because who else would Superman date right? If WW dates anyone it's Batman.
Livewire? Sure pal.
For once for ONCE we thought we might get a toned down version of Lois that played her strengths and didn't have her flaws too out there.
Then she does something like this.
It wasn't people being mad because they didn't know Lois was a c**t it was people being mad because they knew Lois was a c**t and were hoping she wouldn't be.
>Haha yes based Lois!
>....
>Wait no NO NOOOOOOOOOO LOOOIIIIISSS NOOOOOO YOU b***h NOT EVEN ONE FRICKING SECOND
>*Punches tv screen*
>I HATE LOIS LANE, AND I HATE THIS SHOW, AND FRICK NI--
>I hate Lois Lane shirt basedjak.jpg
That was it.
I can't find it but there was this really really old meme comic where Superman goes
>Hm who do I choose, my country childhood tomboy girlfriend, a invulnerable stunning goddess who is my coworker at the goddamn Justice League and has G cup breasts, or this c**toid who screams at me at the top of her lungs, berates me, and only wants to frick the idea of me?
>Lois! Of course! I love you!
>SHUT UP CLARK, I HATE YOU, I HATE YOU SHUT THE FRICK UP INCEL. *Lois proceeds to spit in his face.*
>Oh Lois! Classic Lois! Haha! 🙂 *Licks up spit.*
I can't find it though so take this pic instead
Clear evidence that the show is popular.
She only really does this in the Silver-Age, where literally nothing is taken seriously and Clark is just as psychotic as her. If she throws herself off a cliff, Clark will go out of his way to make her downfall as humiliating as possible while keeping his secret intact.
Milking this for cheap drama isn't nearly as effective, it's just lame and manipulative.
Why do frickers like you assume that just because she does this all the time, it means we like it?
Double digit IQ
Culture Wars. Seething incels need to HATE Lois, even though she's a basically good and heroic person who did something stupid in the heat of the moment because she was still reeling from worrying Clark might be dead. If anything this version of Lois is a damn sight better a person than the character from the Silver Age comics.
>Black folk on twiiter cry 24/7 about how"if you don't hate Lois but hate Amber you be racist n shiiiiitt"
>>IT'S THE INCELS
You for real?
>twiiter
I think you should stop using that site. Or the similarly named one, at least.
It’s portrayed as her having a woman moment and Clark usually ends up saving her in a way that he doesn’t out himself.
It was batshit then and it's batshit now.
Also seemed out of character for this version of Lois.
This is pretty well drawn.
If there was more then two close-ups of the characters faces you'd see he has a vsry bad sameface issue.
I will say I'm glad he finally gave us more brother fricking in his not-loud house comic that we were all asking for. Inbreedimg even.
He's still working on that not-Loud House comic? I had thought he may have dropped it.
I don't know how her character is going to recover from this. It was fricked up and many people just aren't going to like her anymore.
She's already recovered anon
>lois does this shit all the time
And she's a moron every single time.
Now she's moronic and Greek.
I don't think I'm gonna accept this on its face, when HAS Lois actually done shit like this? Like yeah you've got the stupid "LOL I'm gonna jump ff a building to get a scoop" but it's always played as dumb and cheeky from what I've seen, never a "I'll force you to reveal yourself expressly after you denied it and then be pissy about it. I feel like we're neglecting a lot of context just to make a false point. Like they did the same thing with a Spider-man TAS clip despite it being the literal opposite of this scene.
>when HAS Lois actually done shit like this?
In the comics and the movies, she did far worse in both as well, this is the nicest version of her so far.
No I mean be specific, show me a full scene from the comics or movies where she's as much of a b***h about it as Lois was here.
Jeez. At least her hair looks better after the jump.
>Legs
Yum.
Examples? Ones that come to mind are generally played as jokes with Superman using his hax to weasel out of a reveal or confrontation anyway
All those are still Lois throwing herself off a building in a bid to out Clark as Superman though.
Once in the comics Lois actually published Clark's secret identity and turned his life upside down. This was such a bad decision that they had to just that Clark and Lois and replaced them.
So I don't understand your logic here bud.
>throwing yourself off the roof of a building for a joke.
That's ok.
>throwing yourself off the roof of a building to prove a theory.
That's not ok?
What is the difference here that makes the latter immoral?
>The different tones, reasoning, and goals of these scenes would result in the impact meaning of the actions being different.
On the bright side I did my own research and found a scene that's actually applicable. And even then they still handled it better.
Because the Lois that does stupid shit to prove Clark is Superman lives in the same wacky Silver Age world as the Superman that hatches incredibly complicated plots to protect his secret identity and the Jimmy that gets transformed into something different every week. So we just suspend disbelief and go "oh that wacky Lois! I wonder how Superman is gonna get out this one".
This is a way more grounded world so this Lois just comes off as an butthole for both endangering herself needlessly and badgering Clark about his secret.
>tl;dr the difference is the tone of the story. If you want something to be taken serious then it's gonna be taken serious.
>Because the Lois that does stupid shit to prove Clark is Superman lives in the same wacky Silver Age world
Anon you can't do that, you cannot just say Lois's role as an investigative journalist doesn't matter just because of silver age antics.
That's a reach too far, you're gonna have to find a new argument.
Silver Age Lois didn't even want to publish his identity, you dumb frick.
She wanted to find out Superman's identity to force him to marry her.
You're have peddling some bullshit if you think Lois Lane has to stop being a tough as nails newsreporter just so you can tolerate her.
I have been only stating facts. You're the one that is expelling nonsensical bullshit.
Facts?
then there's this one from the donner cut
Her behavior in these isn't exactly tongue in cheek, she's pissed at him in the first one for being 'wrong' and you can tell the 'well they're blank' smugness definitely tested Clark's patience.
Emm she is a girl and in love with both Clark and superman. LITERALLY. in next episode she realize she was wrong. Guys come on already. Frickin Mallah and Brain was her example how wrong she is.
Honestly would have made the actual scene better if they went this route
What about that time Lois snuck into the old warehouse/nuclear power plant/secret prison/underwater base just for a scoop and would absolutely positively have been exploded/irradiated/electrocuted/drowned if Superman hadn't conveniently rescued her?
I want to be a big whiny homosexual and draw attention to my earlier comment, because it was a genuine question (and I'm a big whiny homosexual). Is there a meaningful difference?
I refuse to answer on the grounds that it is devastating to my argument
She didn't intentionally do it to provoke superman
Isn't it equally suicidal behaviour in pursuit of "the truth"? Same motive, same stakes, arguably worse risk analysis?
Except all the times she did you fricking homosexual
>MAWS troony has no reading comprehension and ignores context like a moron
Classic
>/misc/ shitposter takes off the mask
About fricking time
Go back
"troony" and "moron" are completely normal, everyday slurs.
moron is normal because it's insulting the only thing that one can really tell about someone here, their ability to string words together in a way that doesn't make them appear incredibly stupid. troony is a fairly reliable indicator that you're obsessive or trying to fit in with the crowd, standard rent-free shit.
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/?!
Damn. Swain's still working?
Damn bratty reporter. Needs super spanking correction.
Woman moment.
Nobody on Twitter or Tumblr seems to remember Luiz getting pissy with Clark that episode. Cinemaphile is the only place getting upset about it anymore, and in a way that's ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst.
Oh shit, nice to know Swain is still going on. I swear that guy has been here for like 8 years making content on and off.
The sheer level of simpery going on for this Lois is astounding.
I mean, I get it, she's hot, but most versions of her are, and you don't see any of the older Lois fans running over each other to defend her worst actions.
The hottest version of Lois was definitely Teri Hatcher and IIRC she's done worse.
And who defended her for it? No one.
Now this Lois suddenly gets her ass covered for her because simps have flooded the board.
It was the 90s, friend. Cinemaphile didn't exist.
Is anyone defending it now? No? Then I feel confident no one ever defended it.
Nobody defended it because nobody thought to attack it.
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.
About someone you know you might say that, sure. You wouldn't say what's being said in this thread, about a fictional dramedy character, and expect anybody to take you seriously.
so it's a repeat of amber gaslighting shit?
I'd like to see a comedy cartoon with a Lois knockoff and Superman knockoff where the whole thing is just her trying and failing to expose him and looking like a psychopath.
Women hate apologizing.
>those hands
someone was paid to draw this
Tell them not to commission Andrew Dobson next time
I didn't watch this series, im sure im missing some context here becouse so far the autist is the only one making sense so far, why would Clark tell his most important secret to a reporter he just met? It doesn't seem like the kind of secret a superhero would even tell his parents about much less someone he just met
>inb4 "watch the show"
no
>why would Clark tell his most important secret to a reporter he just met?
But she isn't just a reporter but a friend and someone he's romantically attracted to?
So they're together? I guess even if they're a couple i would still wait maybe a year or two and see if the relationship is going somewhere before saying anything and that's being generous to be honest
Anon that's actually a horrible idea because then you hid a huge secret from your partner an entire year or more.
Trust is a two way street.
A year's a lot. It's not exactly first date material though.
Anon, i don't think there ever is a good moment to drop that news, if you trust your partner on that level your the first date, or even on your 10th, i can only say you never dated anyone before, or never been friends with someone who did, relationships come and go all the time for much, much less
>if you trust your partner on that level your the first date, or even on your 10th
We're not talking about me but Superman. Clark cannot just keep this a secret from Lois perpetually if he wants to start dating her, Lois was already figuring it out.
>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?
>These are things you reveal after like a month or two of dating
Do you have experience with telling your dates you're superman?
Main issue was that the entire episode Lois had pretty much pieced together the theory, but wanted Clark to say it himself. Which culminates in Clark returning as Clark with obvious large sword wounds on his neck and playing it off as
>cut myself shaving while watering my plants
Clark is not well practiced in this regard.
They are not a couple when this happens, no.
Lois is genuinely being less reasonable than Amber from Invincible and this whole board is having daily meltdowns because they can't cope with the chosen FOTM being an idiot.
What thread are you reading?
Why are you pretending people are defending Lois' actions as reasonable as opposed to reasonable to have happen in the story?
What's wrong with you?
There's literally a college thesis worth of cope trying to spin this on the superhero in THIS THREAD.
Good point, romantic relationships never fail and end in bad feelings and your ex knowing you're a space alien could have no bad consequences, even if she is a reporter who has vowed to expose said space alien. Granted they were not even dating at this point in the show and probably only knew each other for a few weeks, but still, Lois should know because.. just because, okay?
>romantic relationships never fail and end in bad feelings and your ex knowing you're a space alien could have no bad consequences
Your relationship is guaranteed to fail if you try to hid this huge secret from them.
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
>Basically every
Well two, counting this one, and the only other one got severely clowned on for the trouble......but Tomboy Lois is super cute!
Anon it has happened constantly. It's the go-to "call Superman" move
Why would anyone even try to lie about this
To target a younger generation for indoctrination.
Yeah but Lois was portrayed as a presumptuous, mischievious brat who doesn't know what's good for her and needs a good spanking to put her back in line.
>Just wants to see Superman, no ulterior motive
>Gets goofed on for it
C'mon anon I know you don't read comics, but you could've atleast read the next couple pages
I don't think you know what an ulterior motive is
Your desperation to find any difference, even an insignificant one, fills me with joy.
It's time to stop posting.
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.
Its a lot less controvertial than i thought it would be, thanks for telling me anon
Yeah I really don't get why anyone would be upset about it unless they're just shitposting
It's controversial primarily because of two reasons. Stupid as they may be.
1. A non-negligible crowd of people wants to hate the show for what they perceive it to be, not for anything that's in the actual text of the show
2. A very superficially "similar" scenario transpired in the Invincible adaptation. Only that scenario was 100x worse and the butthurt just kind of bleeds over here even though it really shouldn't.
I vaguely remember that and thinking she was a c**t. I don't understand how someone could carry that over to a different show unless Cinemaphile is, at least 10 or 15% more childish than I previously assumed.
>unless Cinemaphile is more childish than I previously assumed.
Bubbline.
>unless Cinemaphile is, at least 10 or 15% more childish than I previously assumed.
You'll probably want to double those percentages. At minimum.
If you disagree with these posts you're braindead
/thread
Why is Cinemaphile so moronic
>time traveling ghost baby
In one of the movies she pulls a gun and shoots Clark Kent. Lois has been doing this kind of shit forever.
Hands
Congrats on learning Superman's secret identity!
I don't think anyone cares that New Lois jumped out of the window, at least, no more so than the other Lois' that have also jumped, but their issue is with how it was framed. Usually, it's to make Lois look lesser or crazy, which depending on the writer can be used to show she's an imperfect person (allowing for conflicts for Superman to be involved) or that she's strong enough to follower her convictions to death.
The issue with this is that, it's being used to emotional manipulate Clark while showing herself as the victim, and make us sympathize with her when in reality she just harassed a guy for information she doesn't need to know while abusing the trust and care of her friend for her own benefit. Not the first to even attempt this, but it's usually a short emotional burst and Supers just tells her to get over it, and doesn't lament about how he's a bad guy for hurting his friends with his lies.
>she doesn't need to know
But she's Lois, she does need to know? It's part of the genre, you know.
From an outside, plot perspective? Yes, obviously Lois needs to know at a certain point to keep the stories going (even if she has to forget). I'm talking about in-universe, we don't need to sympathize with Lois not finding out Superman's identity because she could just as easily be reporting on something else, and the DC Earth has plenty of interesting things for her to report on. Her obsession with Superman is a negative trait.
>because she could just as easily be reporting on something else
>besides the flying man fighting big science crimes
>I don't think anyone cares that New Lois jumped out of the window, at least, no more so than the other Lois' that have also jumped
horseshit, this entire thread is a counterpoint
>the issue is how they framed it!
Please do tell me how you think they framed it.
>it makes her the victim
Swing and a huge fricking miss. Jesus Christ.
Just go read
and then shut the frick up
I don't know how you can watch that scene and not see they framed Lois as being the victim in this iteration. And, I think the fact that it was never a huge controversy that she jumped out the window in other iterations but suddenly people care about this one is evidence that they're treating this version of events differently than in the past. Obviously people complained in the past over the absurdity of it, but not to this extent or in this quantity, so what changed? Are you implying people are only complaining because they need something about this show to hate on? Because there are plenty of other issues with it that are worth focusing more on than this. People have a problem with it for a reason, not just 'YOU ALL DON'T UNDERSTAND! NOW SHUT UP FOR DISAGREEING WITH ME!'
>I don't know how you can watch that scene and not see they framed Lois as being the victim in this iteration
Stopped reading here
I can watch that scene and not come away thinking Lois is a victim because I have basic media literacy
Yes, you're so special compared to everyone in the thread disagreeing with you, Mr. Contrarian.
>chuds keep making shitpost threads about it so it must be a legit reading!
you tried
sort of
>Everyone who has a different opinion that me is automatically wrong because it's not my opinion and therefor has to be wrong
Yes, kill my argument with another gif, Daddy! It makes you seem so smart and well-educated.
Anon your argument is literally "people are saying it so it must be valid!" in response to an actual reading of the context.
This is sad.
..no I think that anon's argument was "you're a fricking moron".
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.
>Cinemaphile shitposters
>"people in mass"
you mean en masse you dumb motherfricker
and no
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.
>In Mass and En Mass are interchangeable within English
No. They aren't. "People in mass" is not a phrase. En Masse is a loan phrase. You are just digging your whole deeper on top of argumentum ad populum.
You are an intensely stupid person.
Says the nerd who comes to a discussion about Superman to police people's language
Your language is breaking the laws of grammar I must stop you and your follish attempts;
"Follish" isn't even a word.
>samegayging to distract from being a moron and arguing ad populum based on Cinemaphile shitposts
I didn't think you could stoop any lower
goddamn, how embarassing
bone apple tea!
>"Bone apple tea? I don't recognize the name. Now which villain would that be again, friend?"
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.
(Here's where I find out that it's perfectly cromulent in some dialect of English of which I'm unaware and I was the butthole all along)
No, it's not at all a proper usage. En Masse doesn't even translate to "in mass," it translates to "as a group"
It's just a grammar and usage issue. "In a mass" would in fact be a correct literal translation, but "in mass" is ungrammatical and non-standard at the bare minimum, and neither precisely communicates the exact meaning of the loan phrase. There are worse offenders that have fallen into English usage, you must admit.
>she just harassed a guy for information she doesn't need to know
She already knew. He also knew she knew.
Yep.
>65 IPs
god damn, there are some extremely sad shut-ins desperately shitposting for (you)'s in here
>discussions between people?
>on MY anonymous cheese mold enthusiast forum?
>it might be more likely than you'd think!
Couldn't he have used his superspeed to change into his superhero costume superquick?
>having her wonder if she was wrong and he wasn't Superman
lol no
Clark couldn’t have made it more obvious if he forgot to change outfits.
Anon
The person who made that comic didn't watch the episode (which does have multiple points where he gives away that he's Superman, like casually tossing an insanely heavy box)
Half the posters ITT haven't watched the show
They just want to b***h about women and get (you)'s because they're desperate for human contact and, like a child acting out, have learned that being wrong and being a huge c**t are good ways to get people to pay attention to you.
It's just incel things
>i have no argument?
>i know, i'll just throw around some accusations and buzzwords!
inject oxygen directly in your veins
nta but he just gave a lot of arguments like the box scene giving away that Clark had superpowers
I'm starting to think the only people "angry" at this show are just shitposters. Before this episode it was people being mad at Clark not being a chad.
This entire thread is just one or two shitposters farming (you)'s
Frankly it's one of the saddest things I've seen on this board in a long time.
>the box giving away that Clark had superpowers
The box with a dumbbell that was intended for another human with a similar physique as Clark.
Does that mean there's actually two Supermen?
I don't think that other human would be able to just casually throw it away with one hand as if it was empty.
>like the box scene giving away that Clark had superpowers
oh no, i accidentally flashed a part of my shitty chest tattoo that i really want to keep secret
this means i must now undress and show it to everyone i know
Pretty sure the point of his comment is that OP image is wrong, the comic Lois is talking about how she wouldn't know if Clark had to "transform" into Superman or had no powers even though she was suspicious because Clark was doing a lot of impossible feats without noticing.
I'd argue that super strength and literally fricking flying are two very different things, but that would be nitpicking.
It would be ad hominem to say this in response to any criticism in particular, but I'm fairly confident the only problem they have with this show beyond its general unremarkable mediocrity is that it's designed to appeal to girls.
>their problem is that it's designed to appeal to girls
That's a bingo
I feel like any criticism I make about Luiz is going to be co-opted by MRAs who just want to b***h about women being difficult.
I mean, you keep calling her "Luiz" which is a mark against your sincerity. Everyone knows it's "Luz Lane".
I'm using "Luiz" as a midpoint of respect between Lois and Luz.
Lois Lane, I love you!
Anyone has today's leaked episode? The other thread died
Predictions for tonights episode? Is Myx actually going to be the villian?
Lois never actually apologizing for her selfish flipout is an issue, but it would be made up for if in a future episode she recognizes there is a bigger picture and lies to protect Clark.
By then it'll be too late, they'll have forgotten why they're angry
It's never too late for good writing.
>she recognizes there is a bigger picture and lies to protect Clark.
Basically once Lois finds out her dad is dead set to kill Superman and she knows that he's Clark.
S1E1 - Lois endangers herself to try to save the strange flying man that the robots were fighting.
S1E3 - Lois endangers herself trying to get people to safety when fighting was going on.
S1E4 - Lois endangers herself trying to stop Ivo's nonsense and shut down the power supply
S1E5 - Lois spends a good while absolutely terrified that Clark was getting himself killed, and when he came back injured and responded to her horrified reaction with a blatant lie she lost her temper and pulled some extreme shit to cut through the bullshit.
/co/: "On the whole, she seems like a b***h and a moron."
So Lois apologized for this on the latest episode
OP will never recover
She apologized for being late to her date.
And then she watched a file of an evil Superman while Mxy told her to never trust Superman and gave her a shard of kryptonite.
are there any new mega for the new superman episode
I had an idea like this where when Lois jumps she feels herself stop smugly yells out how she knew Clark was Superman only to then open her eyes and see Death of the endless who responds "Sorry, it's just me" Turns out Clark wasn't quick enough to respond and missed catching her by just a split second.
I am going to laugh my ass off once she reveals Clark's identity in episode 8 for some petty reason.
Love Lois. Simple as.