TiVo Community Forums Archives - Smallville- lineage (Spoilers)

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Smallville- lineage (Spoilers)
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: TiVoLance

OK is it just me or does anyone in Smallville live with their biological parents. I liked the episode but was confused at the end. Was Lionel holding (1) a locket picture of young Lex when he had hair or (2) was that his "son that died before he was one". Before that scene I was thinking that Lionel paused waaay too much when Lex asked him about his "son" and made me think that maybe his child was a daughter (heck while was are at the parents changing game lets just say Chole is his).

Head swimming with the drama that is small town america (WB style).

Posted by: Bryanmc

The lock of hair was definitely not Lex's.

Lex had very red hair.

I assumed Linoel lied about the kid dying so young, as the picture was of a much older boy.

Posted by: JYoung

Damn! Not only was this a story that needed to be told, they added several layers to it. Color me impressed all around with everyone's perfomances.
(Notice no Krytonite monster this week either)
Next week's looks good to with the kid from Stray coming back.

Posted by: sschwart

I thought that when they had the flashback, and showed Lex in the field, we saw a lock of blond hair, that looked *exactly* like the one in the locket on his head...

-Steve

Posted by: TiVoLance

Lex had bright red hair (worse than carrot top) in the first episode.

Posted by: holee

This was better than last week's episode. I think they went overboard in doing the melodramatics though, from the Kent's reservation to telling Clark how he got adopted, to Chloe's mother, to Lionel's mistress.

Posted by: okleydokley

I haven't seen it in a long time, but was the clip of Clark coming out of the spaceship the scene from the original Superman movie, or just a close remake?
It looked to me like they took the original footage. (Cool)

Posted by: Bryanmc

quote:
Originally posted by holee
This was better than last week's episode. I think they went overboard in doing the melodramatics though, from the Kent's reservation to telling Clark how he got adopted, to Chloe's mother, to Lionel's mistress.

Do you mean overboard as in too many pieces for one episode?

Personally, I liked the different story lines that you mentioned, but I can see your point if you think there were just too many squeezed into one show.

However, Chloe's was *somewhat* related to the story, the others seemed pretty crucial to the plot.

I loved the Jonathan history about how he's carrying the weight of the town on his shoulders. Great for his character and love for his son.

quote:
Originally posted by okleydokley
I haven't seen it in a long time, but was the clip of Clark coming out of the spaceship the scene from the original Superman movie, or just a close remake?
It looked to me like they took the original footage. (Cool)

Not original footage at all.

Very similar, you can tell they modeled it after the movie, but different.

Posted by: hanumang

quote:
Originally posted by JYoung
Damn! Not only was this a story that needed to be told, they added several layers to it. Color me impressed all around with everyone's perfomances.
(Notice no Krytonite monster this week either)
Next week's looks good to with the kid from Stray coming back.

Ditto

[Damn, if ever there was a posted I needed to say that to, this is it.]

I really enjoyed this episode for the added dimensions. Good stuff.

Posted by: HoosierFan

My question is, why would the mother think that Clark was hers. He was 3 or 4 at the time of the adoption, where her child was just born. Wouldn't she notice the age difference?

Posted by: Bryanmc

quote:
Originally posted by HoosierFan
My question is, why would the mother think that Clark was hers. He was 3 or 4 at the time of the adoption, where her child was just born. Wouldn't she notice the age difference?

I believe he was actually closer to 5, but you do make a good point.

Posted by: JYoung

(Speculation mode on)
Well, Lionel did say that Rachel showed up later with the baby and that he didn't know that she was pregnant. This may have been a little before Clark's arrival, say a year or two. Rachel may have had the boy for a few years before Lionel took it away from her. I'm guessing that Lionel set up the Metropolis United Charities to handle placement for young Lucas. When Jonathan Kent came along and asked his favor, Lionel just used the existing framework, having already buried the paperwork (if any) on Lucas.
(/speculation)

If that doesn't float your boat, well Rachel was a tad on the wacky side....

Posted by: holee

quote:
Originally posted by Bryanmc
I believe he was actually closer to 5, but you do make a good point.

Well if a 20-something actor is supposed to be 15 years old, maybe the mom figured a couple more years wouldn't hurt. :)

Posted by: Graymalkin

quote:
Originally posted by HoosierFan
My question is, why would the mother think that Clark was hers. He was 3 or 4 at the time of the adoption, where her child was just born. Wouldn't she notice the age difference?

DAMN good point! I guess we'll just chalk it up to her general state of insanity. (Yeesh.)

Now, can a DNA test distinguish between African-American and European-American? If it can, someone would definitely know there's been a switch.

I also think that the Kents and Luthors are getting WAY too entangled in each other's family.

Posted by: holee

quote:
Originally posted by Graymalkin

.....
Now, can a DNA test distinguish between African-American and European-American? If it can, someone would definitely know there's been a switch.
.....

Why didn't they just use Jonathan Kent's DNA? It seemed awfully risky to bring Pete in, esp when Clark can run in and out faster without briniging anyone.

Posted by: jhausmann

quote:
Originally posted by holee
Why didn't they just use Jonathan Kent's DNA? It seemed awfully risky to bring Pete in, esp when Clark can run in and out faster without briniging anyone.

Better to use someone's DNA that isn't part of his family, if someone questions the sample, than to use Ma or Pa's.

Posted by: cancermatt

No more Baby Mama Drama! In the two episodes that have aired since 24 returned to the airwaves, I've just gotten a chance to watch Smallville (from the VCR), and let me be the first person in the thread (or the board) to disagree with the majority. Two episodes, and all of a sudden Smallville has become a haven for extramarital affairs. I'll pass. Since when did this become an unoriginal soap opera? I tend to mostly enjoy the "mythology" episodes dealing w/ Clark's newfound powers anyhow... blah times two. Although I did find the "'re-imagining" of the pilot interesting, now if only the creators could re-imagine the past two episodes, that would be a good idea (yeah, right). Guess I'll stick with 24 for a while longer.

Posted by: David Platt

I've been meaning to ask about the legality of the DNA test in this episode. Is there *any* way that this woman could force Clark to give a DNA sample, considering that she gave up all legal rights as his parent when she gave him up for adoption?

Posted by: TiVoLance

I thought of that David. The only thing I could think of is that if the adoptive parents are claiming it wasn't her child she might convince a judge to have it proved. So if Clark wasn't her child she could continue looking elsewhere to see if he wanted contact. If it turned out he was her child she could have done nothing if Clark did not want to see her. She really had no rights.

A huge stretch though.

Posted by: JYoung

quote:
Originally posted by DPlatt
I've been meaning to ask about the legality of the DNA test in this episode. Is there *any* way that this woman could force Clark to give a DNA sample, considering that she gave up all legal rights as his parent when she gave him up for adoption?

Today's courts seem to heavily weigh in favor of the biological parents.
Rachel probably filed for visitation rights. In order for the court to grant said rights, Rachel would have to prove that she is Clark's biological mother, hence the DNA test....

Posted by: DanT

The complaint about the extramarital affairs seems a bit naive, IMHO. They happen, even in smalltown Kansas. Have you ever been to KS? I grew up there. Believe me, there's nothing to do but get drunk and/or get laid.

And it's entirely within Lionel Luthor's character to have an affair (or two or three hundred). Even though they've been trying to make him more sympathetic this year, I was glad to see some of his dark side again. Not just the affair, but the past and present manipulation of the lady/mother as well, and even moreso the past manipulation of Jonathon Kent.

Posted by: ClutchBrake

quote:
Originally posted by holee
Why didn't they just use Jonathan Kent's DNA? It seemed awfully risky to bring Pete in, esp when Clark can run in and out faster without briniging anyone.

The only thing that I found really lame in the episode was that Clark ripped open the fridge containing the DNA. Yeah, that wouldn't cause any suspicion. All the DNA contained in the damaged fridge would have to be recollected.

Posted by: Philosofy

I for one am getting tired of the charecterization of Jonathan Kent as a grumpy, grudge holding, do-it-my-way, suspicious father figure. His charecter just doesn't seem to be the type that could mold the character of Superman.

Posted by: ClutchBrake

quote:
Originally posted by Philosofy
I for one am getting tired of the charecterization of Jonathan Kent as a grumpy, grudge holding, do-it-my-way, suspicious father figure. His charecter just doesn't seem to be the type that could mold the character of Superman.

See my post regarding the episode where Martha takes the job from Lionel. :up:

Posted by: Mars Rocket

I finally got a chance to watch the entire episode, and here are my thoughts:

I really liked the way they explained the Kent-Luthor relationship and spread it out over the entire episode. Yeah, it is kind of soap-ish, but it's a drama, after all.

The writers don't give characters with intertwined lives similar names like "Lex" and "Lucas" without it meaning anything. My first thought is that Mrs. Dunleavy is Lex's mom, not Clark's (obviously not Clark's :) ), but even if she's not there's still another Luthor out there somwhere. Also, Lionel would never leave a potential threat to his fortune out there in limbo.

Secondly, the *easy* way to wrap up the problem would have been to explain that the baby died during childbirth, and that this was why she was crazy...but they didn't go that route, so there's obviously more to the story.

So, there are two ways this can play out in future episodes:

1. She is Lex's mom
2. Lex has a brother out there who will return and make a claim on the family fortune.

Posted by: smak

I'm thinking Lionel gave Lucas to another Smallville family, and he's kept in touch. Why else would he have a picture of himself and the kid years later.

My only complaint is why did every major characters family all of a sudden come into play. Too many things, too fast.

And i hope that Mrs Dunleavy isn't Lex's mom, i'd rather the brother show up than that.

-smak-