Smallville FInale: Spoilers

[bartl]

The defeat of Doomsday was so quick that I had to rewind the tape, figuring that I had somehow missed it. I kind of assumed that Doomsday is just buried, and not quite dead yet (and, even if he is, he'll get better). Since we weren't told, I suppose we'll find out. Or not.

As far as Jimmy Olsen goes, I am taking the funeral as being, "Ha! Ha! That's not the REAL Jimmy Olsen; that's his older brother!" It is not unheard of for two brothers to have the same middle name (certainly more common than two brothers having the same first name; trivia: Name a television series where two brothers had the same first name, and it WASN'T supposed to be a joke), or one having a first name which is the middle name of the other. So, the little kid is James Bartholomew Olsen.

[David Walton]

The defeat of Doomsday was so quick that I had to rewind the tape, figuring that I had somehow missed it. I kind of assumed that Doomsday is just buried, and not quite dead yet (and, even if he is, he'll get better). Since we weren't told, I suppose we'll find out. Or not.

Presumably he's buried much in the same way he was at the beginning of the Doomsday arc in the comics. So it fits into the Superman mythos comfortably.

As far as Jimmy Olsen goes, I am taking the funeral as being, "Ha! Ha! That's not the REAL Jimmy Olsen; that's his older brother!" It is not unheard of for two brothers to have the same middle name (certainly more common than two brothers having the same first name; trivia: Name a television series where two brothers had the same first name, and it WASN'T supposed to be a joke), or one having a first name which is the middle name of the other. So, the little kid is James Bartholomew Olsen.

It was an effective way to have a surprise ending for a character whom we all knew couldn't die.

He could...he just wasn't said character!

Also makes sense because the Jimmy of Smallville seemed a bit worldly at this point to remotely resemble the Olsen of the Superman mythos.

[Steven Grant]

The defeat of Doomsday was so quick that I had to rewind the tape, figuring that I had somehow missed it. I kind of assumed that Doomsday is just buried, and not quite dead yet (and, even if he is, he'll get better). Since we weren't told, I suppose we'll find out. Or not.

Apparently the bomb was supposed to be strong enough to have killed Clark too, since Chloe was amazed he was still alive, but did any of them really think they could build a bomb like that without kryptonite - and they already knew Kryptonite wouldn't kill Doomsday. The whole thing was just murky, murky logic, and shoddy cheating. On the other hand, I assume the SFX was the five seconds of Doomsday we saw burned out their budget. Still...

As far as Jimmy Olsen goes, I am taking the funeral as being, "Ha! Ha! That's not the REAL Jimmy Olsen; that's his older brother!" It is not unheard of for two brothers to have the same middle name (certainly more common than two brothers having the same first name; trivia: Name a television series where two brothers had the same first name, and it WASN'T supposed to be a joke), or one having a first name which is the middle name of the other. So, the little kid is James Bartholomew Olsen.

Sure, I don't think there was anyone who watches the show who didn't get that, since "our" Jimmy was also Clark's age and Jimmy in the comics continuity is considerably younger, and the kid at the funeral wore a bow tie, and Chloe gave him the camera and said, "This belongs to you" like waving a big red flag. I guess this gives Clark a reason to take Jimmy the younger under his wing, out of guilt for having caused the death of Jimmy the elder. But wait, wasn't there a subplot in season 7 as Jimmy and Chloe were planning for their wedding where Jimmy wanted nothing to do with his family that was never followed up?

But even though they dramatically killed Jimmy, and he got to save Chloe in the process, they still had to give him one painfully chuckleheaded moment: "You're some kind of super... guy!" What a stupid bit. (And had Jimmy never even heard of Nietzsche? Or George Bernard Shaw?)

The "cliffhanger" left me really cold, too. Not the Zod bit so much, though all I can do to that is roll my eyes, but where Clark tells Chloe he misjudged that Davis the human was also a homicidal paranoid (though wasn't it Davis who decided he had to murder evildoers to make up for the monster inside him) so humans must be evil as well, so he's going to "abandon" his humanity (which, as I recall, is what Jor-El wanted him to do all along). So that's the conclusion he draws: he misjudged Davis and thought only the monster was the monster but human beings are capable of bad things too (which I'd have thought he'd have picked up over the prior, oh, eight season) so he can't be human anymore. He couldn't just conclude that nobody can anticipate every eventuality? Another massively dumb logic leap...

- Grant

[bartl]

but human beings are capable of bad things too (which I'd have thought he'd have picked up over the prior, oh, eight season) so he can't be human anymore. He couldn't just conclude that nobody can anticipate every eventuality? Another massively dumb logic leap...
Nobody's ever accused Clark of Smallville of being logical, to my knowledge. What I got from it was putting his friends' lives above humanity as a whole caused much greater harm to be done, he should have just let Cloe die, and he'd be a better protector of humanity if he wasn't so human, but became just as arbitrary and illogical as Jor-El (I never COULD figure out if he was supposed to be a good guy or bad guy, seeing how often he switched sides).

In other words, I agree that in Smallville, the writing staff seem to be making it up as they go along, and hoping people won't notice the self-contradictory nature of the plotlines. Hey, it worked for THE DA VINCI CODE; of course, they'd have to put some, "Oooooooooooh! Eeeeeeeeevil Catholics! Huh! Huh! Huh!" into Smallville to duplicate the success, I guess.

[David Walton]

Nobody's ever accused Clark of Smallville of being logical, to my knowledge. What I got from it was putting his friends' lives above humanity as a whole caused much greater harm to be done, he should have just let Cloe die, and he'd be a better protector of humanity if he wasn't so human, but became just as arbitrary and illogical as Jor-El (I never COULD figure out if he was supposed to be a good guy or bad guy, seeing how often he switched sides).

I'm not sure the writers have any idea what one should get out of Clark's experience this time around...

It seems like Clark is being shoehorned into Batman's TDKR and TDK dilemma--he's drawn a line for himself he won't cross, but does he have an ethical obligation to?

At some point I felt like they were trying to say that Clark would need to make the best use of both Jonathan Kent and Jor-El's wisdom. But that was several seasons ago, and neither the Kents nor Jor-El have been an effective presence in Clark's life for quite some time. Without that tension between his competing father figures the idea of Clark abandoning his humanity isn't as effective...and I'm not sure that either Clark or the writers know what he even means by that. It's not like he decided to rule the world with an iron fist or fly into space...the finale lacked a dramatic hook that would show us what was at stake with Clark's melancholy other than a childish fit.

That said, I enjoyed the episode. I stopped looking to Smallville for imaginative unity or logic a long time ago and just embrace what was left. Jimmy's death and Davis' action were both effective surprises that worked for me.

And I think the real lesson we've learned from this is that in spite of the fact he's no longer a vessel for an alien doomsday machine, you should probably not make your marriage bed over the unconscious form of the unstable guy whose emotions you've been jacking with for the past month to save the world.

[maczero]

Name a television series where two brothers had the same first name, and it WASN'T supposed to be a joke)Newhart.

"Hi. I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl. This is my other brother Darryl."

[Steven Grant]

became just as arbitrary and illogical as Jor-El (I never COULD figure out if he was supposed to be a good guy or bad guy, seeing how often he switched sides).

Hollywood's idea of a stern but loving father. "Because I love you, son, I will freeze you in a block of ice until you learn the error of your ways while your evil duplicate destroys your reputation." I'm told all of Hollywood is now obsessed with father issues as motivation. Never having had any father issues, I find the whole thing a little silly, but that's just me. I suppose if I spent two or three decades on a psychiatrist's couch I'd think father issues were a big deal too...

In other words, I agree that in Smallville, the writing staff seem to be making it up as they go along, and hoping people won't notice the self-contradictory nature of the plotlines. Hey, it worked for THE DA VINCI CODE; of course, they'd have to put some, "Oooooooooooh! Eeeeeeeeevil Catholics! Huh! Huh! Huh!" into Smallville to duplicate the success, I guess.

I'd heard that Welling took over creative control of the show this season - don't know if that's true, never cared enough to get it verified - but that might explain a few things about this season of Short Attention Span Theater...

- Grant

[Steven Grant]

the finale lacked a dramatic hook that would show us what was at stake with Clark's melancholy other than a childish fit.

Besides, we all know it'll last two episodes at most. Or at least until Lois comes back into the picture...

- Grant

[bartl]

"Hi. I'm Larry. This is my brother Darryl. This is my other brother Darryl."
Nope; that WAS treated as a joke. I asked for a series where it WASN'T treated as a joke.

[Michael P]

Hollywood's idea of a stern but loving father. "Because I love you, son, I will freeze you in a block of ice until you learn the error of your ways while your evil duplicate destroys your reputation." I'm told all of Hollywood is now obsessed with father issues as motivation. Never having had any father issues, I find the whole thing a little silly, but that's just me. I suppose if I spent two or three decades on a psychiatrist's couch I'd think father issues were a big deal too...

Peter David did a cute bit about father/parent issues in one of his Star Trek books. One character is about to run off and do something stupid in a fit of revenge-inspired rage, so another character sits him down and says (Reader's digest version), "I was in your shoes once. My parents were killed by raiders, and I immediately went after them, looking for revenge. I was so hamstrung by my anger that they beat the tar out of me, and I was in the hospital for months. It didn't do me or my parents any good." And the first character calms down.

Later on, the first character mentions the story offhand, and the second character says, "What? Oh, that. I just made that up to stop you from doing something stupid."

[David Walton]

Besides, we all know it'll last two episodes at most. Or at least until Lois comes back into the picture...

- Grant

The season openers have consistently failed to deliver on the promise of the finales for that very reason.

There's virtually nothing Clark can't dispense with in the course of a single episode.