Superman Through the Ages! Forum

Superman on the Screen! => Adventures on Television! => Topic started by: Permanus on May 04, 2007, 04:27:30 PM



Title: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Permanus on May 04, 2007, 04:27:30 PM
For some years now, I have been reserving my opinion on the Smallville television series, because I'd never really had the occasion to see it. I had inklings of the show, none of which I liked; apparently, there was some sort of soap opera feel to the whole thing. I had seen pictures, of course, and didn't really like the face of Tom Welling as Clark; I did, however, like the choice of Annette O'Toole as Martha, a witty and clever bit of casting. The idea seemed to be quite clever, playing a riff off a bit of Americana without directly mentioning it.

So, today, I made use of the Internet to watch the pilot episode, and a few others besides.

I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT  I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT  I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT  I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT  I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE IT  I HATE IT


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on May 05, 2007, 07:25:53 AM
It got better but mostly its Dawson's Creek writ Super. But still there's been some standout eps per season


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: jamespup on May 05, 2007, 07:32:53 AM
This is the only incarnation of Superman that I just can't seem to get into at all.

And I really like Annette O'Toole, i was lucky enough to see her perform with Michael McKean at a nightclub


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Super Monkey on May 05, 2007, 09:16:32 AM
Nah, they all stink. There are some cool moments here and there but that's about it.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Michel Weisnor on May 05, 2007, 10:24:51 AM
Smallville still gets ratings. Proving once again, Superman has drawing power. If you sift through all the convoluted subplots, there is potential for a great story. Sadly, I don't believe we'll ever see it. 


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: DBN on May 05, 2007, 02:36:38 PM
What is there to like about the show? The "writing" is grade-school level and most of the acting isn't even equal to that a high school drama club.

Moreover, Clark is an incompotent moron who 9/10 has to be lead on to the plot by Chloe or Lois. He stills listens and obeys the disembodied voice who wants him to conquer the planet, that killed several people, and is only slightly less ruthless than Zod.

Lex's motivation for evil comes right out of Star Wars: Episode 3. He goes down the dark path to attempt to save Lana from dying in child birth.

Bo Duke, the most entertaining character on the show, is brilliantly killed off just to echo what happened in a movie that was released 30 years ago.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: jamespup on May 05, 2007, 05:07:01 PM
I meant I liked her overall, not her acting on the show


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: alabama assassin on May 08, 2007, 07:19:51 AM
smallville is probably one of shows that i have followed the most in my life.  i always loved the early superman movies, but never read a single comic book in my life.  since watching smallville and now superman returns, i have completely jumped into the superman universe.  i have started buying superman graphic novels as fast as i can read them and frequent several message boards nightly.  smallville can be a little soap opera ish, but i love the coming of age, great parenting, responsibility, friendship, and young love themes.  my girlfriend has even caught the superhero fever from the show.  she told me the other day that she caught herself defending superman against batman and spiderman fans, while at her workplace.  so maybe smallville is offensive to some of the old school purist, but to us rookies it can be the start of a new journey. 


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: MatterEaterLad on May 08, 2007, 12:13:13 PM
smallville is probably one of shows that i have followed the most in my life.  i always loved the early superman movies, but never read a single comic book in my life.  since watching smallville and now superman returns, i have completely jumped into the superman universe.  i have started buying superman graphic novels as fast as i can read them and frequent several message boards nightly.  smallville can be a little soap opera ish, but i love the coming of age, great parenting, responsibility, friendship, and young love themes.  my girlfriend has even caught the superhero fever from the show.  she told me the other day that she caught herself defending superman against batman and spiderman fans, while at her workplace.  so maybe smallville is offensive to some of the old school purist, but to us rookies it can be the start of a new journey. 

I don't think its a case of purism as in plot details - for me the series rarely works because the motivations of Clark, Lex and Lana are often based on possession of or obsession on low brow goals - i.e. "being with someone, getting something". Maybe that works for some serials, but this is the story of Superman and, unrealistic or not, the comics always had greater purpose to its themes.

Some moments on "Smallville" have made me smile (the ending race between Clark and Bart on "Run") but generally, I prefer animated short series or stand alone mythologies like the first Superman movie over "Felicity" in a fictional town.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: alabama assassin on May 08, 2007, 01:35:08 PM
smallville is probably one of shows that i have followed the most in my life.  i always loved the early superman movies, but never read a single comic book in my life.  since watching smallville and now superman returns, i have completely jumped into the superman universe.  i have started buying superman graphic novels as fast as i can read them and frequent several message boards nightly.  smallville can be a little soap opera ish, but i love the coming of age, great parenting, responsibility, friendship, and young love themes.  my girlfriend has even caught the superhero fever from the show.  she told me the other day that she caught herself defending superman against batman and spiderman fans, while at her workplace.  so maybe smallville is offensive to some of the old school purist, but to us rookies it can be the start of a new journey. 

I don't think its a case of purism as in plot details - for me the series rarely works because the motivations of Clark, Lex and Lana are often based on possession of or obsession on low brow goals - i.e. "being with someone, getting something". Maybe that works for some serials, but this is the story of Superman and, unrealistic or not, the comics always had greater purpose to its themes.

Some moments on "Smallville" have made me smile (the ending race between Clark and Bart on "Run") but generally, I prefer animated short series or stand alone mythologies like the first Superman movie over "Felicity" in a fictional town.

smallville will probably have it's last season next year, since michael rosenbaum's contract expires at this time.  if this happens, we will not have any more superman tv entertainment available (ends of superman:TAS and JLUnlimited).  we should try to enjoy it while it is still available.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Gangbuster on May 08, 2007, 03:36:59 PM
I really liked Smallville in the beginning. "Low brow goals," confusion, moral turmoil, and teenage drama are perfectly ok if the main character is a freshman in high school. As time went on, this became less acceptable to me; Clark Kent as an adult should really leave these traits behind. Season 4 is when the show basically became unacceptable to me.

Welcome, fellow Alabamian! I wouldn't worry about there being no Superman on tv; the Legion of Superheroes animated show is still on, and Superman is too profitable for WB to not continue some form of show.

Worst case scenario, they replace Rosenbaum and continue the show.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: MatterEaterLad on May 08, 2007, 04:57:02 PM
Season 1 was a little heavy on the freak of the week, but I was willing to put up with Clark obsessing over Lana (that's a switch from the comics) for 2 seasons max.

WBs "The Batman" series has introduced the Justice League of America, so that franchise may have a Superman character too.  With the Timms series, the Legion series, and the new Batman series, its getting a little confusing.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: TELLE on May 08, 2007, 06:28:58 PM
Just goes to prove: different strokes and all that.  Superman the concept trumps all sorts of mediocrity in terms of application.

When it comes to Superboy, I was initially a fan of the Maggin novels (and lately their spiritual heirs, the Sam Hawkins short stories).



Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: alabama assassin on May 08, 2007, 07:28:41 PM
the Legion of Superheroes animated show is still on,

when and what channel can i find this series?


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Johnny Nevada on May 08, 2007, 07:56:03 PM
the Legion of Superheroes animated show is still on,

when and what channel can i find this series?

On Saturday mornings on your local "CW" network affiliate...


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Super Monkey on May 08, 2007, 07:57:08 PM
the Legion of Superheroes animated show is still on,

when and what channel can i find this series?

 Click right here for all the details : http://kidswb.warnerbros.com/kids/shows-LegionOfSuperHeroes


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: alabama assassin on May 08, 2007, 09:01:09 PM
thanks for the info


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Permanus on May 09, 2007, 06:28:46 AM
so maybe smallville is offensive to some of the old school purist, but to us rookies it can be the start of a new journey. 

I freely admit I'm a bit of an old fogey (in fact I was already an old fogey when I was 17), and I'm certainly a purist, so I suppose you're right when you say that Smallville offers younger people an introduction to Superman. My one concern is that the series seems to be a bit afraid of its source material and only includes the stuff that its core fans - teenagers, I suppose - won't think is ghey, to use the modern terminology. It's interesting to encounter someone who knows Superman from the other end, so to speak; nice to hear you're getting into the comics, you've got a lot of goodness ahead of you!


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: nightwing on May 09, 2007, 07:27:49 AM
I've actually wondered whether "Smallville" is creating new comics fans.  Seems to me anyone who reads the books based on the show would find there's not much connecting them, and give up.

Then again, what got me into Ian Fleming's Bond novels were the Roger Moore films, so I guess anything's possible.  :D

Getting back to the header for this thread, I don't know that it's possible for a Superman fan to view Smallville objectively.  That would only really be possible for someone who knew nothing about Superman before watching the show...or at least knew or cared very little.  The very fact that I AM a Superman fan means I'm going to tune in with certain expectations that will either be met or not.  On the other hand, I could tune in to the first episode of "Lost" with no expectations whatever, and judge the show on it's own merits, if you follow.

Having said all that, if you take away the Superman angle and all the baggage it brings, and simply judge "Smallville" as a TV show, I have to say I've only made it through two complete episodes in what, seven years? (the one where Lex marries the hot girl from Days of Our Lives and the one with the cheerleader who stinks the life force out of teenage boys...or is that redundant?) Maybe it's because I'm not a high schooler, or because the show started as a wannabe "X-Files" without the budget, or just because I got lousy reception from my WB affiliate via the rabbit ears on top of my TV, but I can honestly say "Smallville" is the first incarnation of Superman that hasn't interested me enough to watch more than a couple of times. 

On the other hand, my wife was often up late nursing the baby and watching "Smallville" reruns in the wee hours of the morning, and she really got into it.  It beat "Star Trek: Voyager," anyway.



Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Klar Ken T5477 on May 09, 2007, 09:01:21 AM
I watch regularly for that one or two lines of dialog or Clark's super-stuff that brings out the geek in me.  Usually in terms of arcs, the first two eps and last two of the season are the BIG story - although Lex has slowly turned over the years into the Lex we all know and hate...

And last week, Jimmy got klonked on the head and had a B&W Noir dream and int the 40s Clark is wearing glasses, adjusting them (and blowing Routh away as he does) who has a double identity as a Fed.  The show was shot well (as always - it won the American Cinematography award) and the leads did their "Big Sleep" number. Kristin Keruk may be the worst actress ever to play Lana -- plus she ends up in the hospital ever darn week.  KK couldnt even pull off the femme fatale part in the 40s seg.

This week: Lex's been developing a force field AND a super-soldier serum.  And the season's finale will no doubt place everyone in peril  as its taken all season to round up the escaped Zoners.

On the production news a pilot "Metropolis" that would feature Green Arrow and Lois has been shot - so wrong. No word on whether it's been picked up.  Hopefully will join the Aqua pilot on Youtube.

If youre going to do Metropolis, its no city with CK/Superman.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Gangbuster on May 09, 2007, 03:37:10 PM
I caught a rerun of the 1950s episode (from the second season, I think) yesterday, and  you're right...Kristin Kreuk is not that great of an actress. Of course, when you say that she's the worst to ever play Lana, there has only really been one more to play her in a regular tv series. It's because of the hair.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Criadoman on May 09, 2007, 11:33:16 PM
Well, a couple of points...
1) If you are a fan of Superman in any incarnation of film, TV or comics - you will not find Smallville being particularly true outside of the very basic aspects.
2) We are here talking about TV drama/suspense about a superhero.

To 1 I say...
The kick I get the biggest of is how many people I talk to who have found out about the series, and knowing I'm a big Superman fan, go out of their way to talk to me about how much they like the show and how neat episode #? was, and so forth.

I've resigned myself to just looking at this pretty much like I looked at the Byrne's revision (and frankly I like Smallville better than that one), Birthright, Elseworlds or anything else.  Personally I also think that the show is much more interesting than not.  Yup, there were some really terrible episodes, particularly the 1st part of season 5, but overall, a rather enjoyable trip and very neat to have such a long running Superman show approaching it's 7th season.

To 2 I say...
This show was a definite chance when it was purchased.  There was no way to tell it would be such a hit when it came out.  So...unfortunately economically speaking, eye candy was more important than Juliard training.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: living not existing on February 02, 2009, 03:42:43 PM
What is there to like about the show? The "writing" is grade-school level and most of the acting isn't even equal to that a high school drama club.

Moreover, Clark is an incompotent moron who 9/10 has to be lead on to the plot by Chloe or Lois. He stills listens and obeys the disembodied voice who wants him to conquer the planet, that killed several people, and is only slightly less ruthless than Zod.

Lex's motivation for evil comes right out of Star Wars: Episode 3. He goes down the dark path to attempt to save Lana from dying in child birth.

Bo Duke, the most entertaining character on the show, is brilliantly killed off just to echo what happened in a movie that was released 30 years ago.

That's a little harsh.

It's an entertaining, watchable show, but its lost its way from its original premise. Now its all about fan 'ships (Clark/Lana, Clark/Chloe, etc) having former Superman media actors as guest stars (although I thoroughly enjoy this idea) and various other Superman characters making appearances (Aquaman, Green Arrow, Supergirl, etc) too, yet again, prematurely.

However, Smallville manages to do what the Superman movies refuse to do; have a villain other than Lex Luthor! I have to agree with you about John Schneider. Its almost like everything Superman has to obey allegiance to the pre-crisis canon. We've seen [for the first time in live action] Brainiac, Doomsday, etc.

But at the end of the day, whether you like Smallville or not, its the only thing right now keeping Superman alive. We had Superman Returns, a rehash of a 30 year old movie sequel, that barely made a dent into the general public's conscience. I've ran into many people who didn't even know a new Superman movie had came out. The two decades we've seen various versions and interpretations of Batman on film, and yet people can't let go the Donner/Reeve interpretation that its almost embedded into everyone's mind sight that Superman MUST be played that way. George Reeves never played Clark Kent as the extremely goofy, bumbling fool to further to depart himself from Superman. In fact, it wasn't until Christopher Reeve that [Superman] was portrayed that way. I still maintain that Reeve is the best Superman by far, but the whole ridiculous Clark thing got on my nerves. The best reporter of the Daily Planet get through a revolving door without bumping into the ceiling or needing Lois' help?


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: jayce77 on March 09, 2011, 06:34:14 PM
I always loved how Smallville was about Superman when he was Clark Kent before the flight and the tights ( as they put it ) until season 6 or so. Then all the sudden, it was a complete alternative version of Superman. Cause they F-ed up the mythos so royally, there was just nothing else to say.

I swear, if this show was on a major network, and a prime spot. It would have been cancelled many, many yrs ago. Either that, or it would have had too seriously step it up a few notches. Several actually. The fact that they put it on Friday's at 8:00, ( Which used to be the prime spot 20-25 yrs ago ) is even telling for the CW. So it's just impossibe ( even if I was 15 yrs old ) for a huge Superman fan, and lover of great television to look at this laughable teenie WB hackjob with character's so annoying and 1 dimentional I want to pull my hair out as anything but.

Somebody save me indeed.


(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/284/sv1280x10241.png) (http://img153.imageshack.us/i/sv1280x10241.png/)




Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: DBN on March 17, 2011, 04:39:21 AM
That's a little harsh.

No, it isn't. Smallville always dumbed the writing and character development down in order to maintain the status quo and appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Quote
It's an entertaining, watchable show, but its lost its way from its original premise. Now its all about fan 'ships (Clark/Lana, Clark/Chloe, etc) having former Superman media actors as guest stars (although I thoroughly enjoy this idea) and various other Superman characters making appearances (Aquaman, Green Arrow, Supergirl, etc) too, yet again, prematurely.

I've only found the show to be watchable after consuming a considerable quantity of alcohol. Did it have potential? Yup. It had a ton of it, but the dolts running the show squandered each and every opportunity they had to reinvent the show after Gough and Miller left.

Quote
However, Smallville manages to do what the Superman movies refuse to do; have a villain other than Lex Luthor! I have to agree with you about John Schneider. Its almost like everything Superman has to obey allegiance to the pre-crisis canon. We've seen [for the first time in live action] Brainiac, Doomsday, etc.

It also manages to portray the lead character as an imbecile to the point where you would believe that he's brain damaged.

Quote
But at the end of the day, whether you like Smallville or not, its the only thing right now keeping Superman alive. We had Superman Returns, a rehash of a 30 year old movie sequel, that barely made a dent into the general public's conscience. I've ran into many people who didn't even know a new Superman movie had came out. The two decades we've seen various versions and interpretations of Batman on film, and yet people can't let go the Donner/Reeve interpretation that its almost embedded into everyone's mind sight that Superman MUST be played that way. George Reeves never played Clark Kent as the extremely goofy, bumbling fool to further to depart himself from Superman. In fact, it wasn't until Christopher Reeve that [Superman] was portrayed that way. I still maintain that Reeve is the best Superman by far, but the whole ridiculous Clark thing got on my nerves. The best reporter of the Daily Planet get through a revolving door without bumping into the ceiling or needing Lois' help?

I don't celebrate mediocrity. Smallville may have been the only thing in the public's eye for a while, but the point remains that it can be done better. Superman may be my favorite character, but I'm not going to pretend that I like sub-standard material.



Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: BBally81 on March 19, 2011, 09:54:41 PM
From someone who grew up a Superman fan since the 80's, I actually like Smallville, yes I said I like Smallville. I think the first 4 seasons were pretty good, despite the liberties taken, the first 4 seasons feel they could fit in the comic canon. The season 2 episode Ryan was a very touching episode. Since the early seasons were made before Superman's past as Superboy was brought back into continuity, I kind of like that Superboy like touch they did with having Clark wearing red jacked, blue shirt and jeans.

And Michael Rosenbaum is the best Live Action Lex Luthor, I wasn't a big fan of Gene Hackman's Lex and less said about Spacey's Lex the better.

Season 5 was meh and then things started going downhill since season 6 but then season 9 was sort of an improvement and I'm really enjoying season 10, the episode Scion, when Clark decided to take care of Conner (formerly Alexander Luthor, a clone of Lex) that scene actually has Clark act more like Superman would than JMS' Grounded Superman (which is improving after Chris Robinson took over and starting fixing the damage done by JMS)

As for the acting, it isn't ground breaking but its competent but seriously John Glover who plays Lionel Luthor was fantastic.

I also loved every scene involving Clark and Kents in the early seasons, like that an opening scene of one episode where the Kents were having a normal family breakfast moment until Clark heats a piece of toast with his heat vision (Love that scene ;D)


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: superboy on April 25, 2011, 09:00:33 AM
I am a fan of superman and the old chris reeve films and i loooooove smallville. I admit the first five seasons were a bit....pathetic yet it got lots of people watching.I think it's a shame clark was known as ,the blur, a bit dark yet it was cool.I like the ones where he is battling phantom zone baddies( although killing is very un superman like ) and him meeting young jla members. it has got a classic yet modern feel, even if he isn't superboy.


Title: Re: Smallville, seen objectively
Post by: Kal-El on June 19, 2011, 06:02:38 PM
Ive watched all the episodes but ive got to agree that i'm not that impressed, it just doesnt sit right with me that all these hundreds of school people have abilities.