BREAKING NEWS! THE SUIT REVEALED!

Stockslivevan wrote:

At least 90% of the stuff on SV had some kind of precedent in the comics. In the cases where the show innovated, it did so no more often (per capita) and to no worse an outcome than STAS, Donner, L&C or other media. And a lot of the show's weak spots (a lot; not all) are due to circumstances outside the showrunners' control.

SV? Not perfect but it's damn good.

SMALLVILLE seemed like a good concept but it always felt like the writers never believed in their own show so they simply went back to the same formula and gimmicks because it was easier that way. Kind of like STAR TREK: VOYAGER, drumming the same shit up because they know the fans will eat it up anyway and they laugh their way to the bank.

I believe the show should have had a maximum amount of four seasons, purely focusing on Clark growing up learning the things that will shape him up to be Superman. No kryptonite mutants, no DC character appearances for ratings, no constant Lana whining. To me the best dynamic the show had for awhile was the friendship between Clark and Lex. There was good enough chemistry between the actors to really take it somewhere. I really love the concept of Lex genuinely being a good person and then slowly descending to evil throughout the show's progress, ruining his friendship with Clark. I thought they were on a roll with it in the first three seasons but by the fourth it felt inorganic the way Clark decided Lex was his enemy (until he got a dog as a present from Lex, IIRC). Silliest moment was when he walks into a secret room and finds 50 x 50 size images of himself, probably the creepiest moment I have ever seen in a TV series.

Overall, I found it for the most part disappointing. I gave up around the sixth season. Pretty amazing, cuz I used to watch that show religiously. I would occasionally try to jump back on the show but everytime I returned it just seemed to have gotten not only worse but convoluted. Learning that Lex has all his memory wiped felt as if the writers just erased his whole arc.


So yeah, I can't call it better than Bruce Timm's show, or even Donner's film despite having a far superior Lex.

Stockslivevan wrote:I believe the show should have had a maximum amount of four seasons, purely focusing on Clark growing up learning the things that will shape him up to be Superman.

That's fine, except it's not how TV shows in America are done. If the ratings are good and advertising numbers are solid, the show will go on. What you're describing is not an ongoing TV show, it's a really motherfucking long miniseries.

Stockslivevan wrote:No kryptonite mutants,

Then who is this superhero in training supposed to fight each week?

Stockslivevan wrote:no DC character appearances for ratings,

That makes it a lot harder to contrast who Clark is and who he's becoming. That isn't saying every DC character's appearance was good. Blue Beetle, comes to mind. I forget the specifics of that episode but I remember thinking it would've been more effective had it just been a Booster Gold episode.

Stockslivevan wrote:no constant Lana whining.

...

Well, you got me there.

Stockslivevan wrote:I thought they were on a roll with it in the first three seasons but by the fourth it felt inorganic the way Clark decided Lex was his enemy (until he got a dog as a present from Lex, IIRC). Silliest moment was when he walks into a secret room and finds 50 x 50 size images of himself, probably the creepiest moment I have ever seen in a TV series.

You're saying you don't see how Clark finding that room might not have kind of changed his perceptions of Lex? Besides, a good bit of the season had revolved around Lex and Clark coming into conflict with each other. Clark finding that room was the straw that broke the camel's back. It wasn't that single incident that set everything else off.

It goes to who Lex is. He couldn't accept Clark's act of mercy at face value. There just had to some dark, sinister conspiracy behind all of it. Rather than just go on living, Lex let it turn into obsession because he never truly understood what selflessness and virtue are all about.

Stockslivevan wrote:Learning that Lex has all his memory wiped felt as if the writers just erased his whole arc.

That moment bothered me too. Still somewhat does. But it's mitigated a little by it being a counterpoint to Clark's arc in the finale vis a vis flashbacks and family. Clark's family member uses Clark's history and his memory to build him up and enable him to face his future. Lex's family member erases his history and his memory to destroy him and prevent him from facing his future. It's the final Clark/Lex counterpoint of the show. For Lex, it doesn't work in terms of character or narrative but it plays really well as far as theme goes. I don't like it but I can accept it on those grounds.

If nothing else, SV scores point for me for emphasizing the importance of the Kents in shaping Superman. As much as I love Donner, I felt like the Kents got shafted the moment Brando was cast as Jor-El. That act somehow changed the role of Jonathan Kent from Clark's principal moral influence to a temporary placeholder for Jor-El's ghost. Jonathan is, was and will always be more than that.

I understand TV shows generally go longer than four seasons, but I feel that's about the right amount needed to tell a story about Clark growing up in Smallville. Just a preference. I think you can make Clark do plenty of heroic things without kryptonite mutants, it's been done on the show plenty of times and I often felt they were the most poignant.

I remember the show building up to the moment when the friendship broke because Clark found that secret room, but I found that scene be rather hokey. I remember even Michael Rosenbaum noted the absurdity of the whole thing during an interview where by the time Clark is leaving the room Lex just kinda stands there and tries calling him back in by saying "Clark..." while you see all the displays in behind of him. I dunno, it's just something that distracted me from what's supposed to be a dramatic moment.

One concept I dug was in the early seasons where it implied that Jor-El actually sent Kal-El to rule Earth and that Jor-El was an evil dictator on Krypton. That was a pretty cool twist I thought. It wouldn't even ruin Superman's arc because ultimately it's what he learned from Smallville that shaped his values and ethics. Learning his father was Hitler might have emphasized his desire to do good and make redeem his heritage. I kinda wished they stuck with that but somewhere along the line they just tried to retcon it and make Jor-El out to be a good guy all along who was just misunderstood, as if they all suddenly forgot that a bunch of people got killed under his influence, even wiping out a human's memories, giving her powers then killing her once she "served her purpose". Apparently that was done cuz it was the closest they could give him daddy issues without it being Pa Kent.

Speaking of Pa, I always felt Glenn Ford made the best Jonathan Kent. I always feel gutted every time his death occurs. John Schneider came close though and if the writers didn't chuck in that horrible gimmick with him showing prejudice against Lex when all the guy did was nothing but good for the Kents, he might have been the best Pa.

Stockslivevan wrote:I understand TV shows generally go longer than four seasons, but I feel that's about the right amount needed to tell a story about Clark growing up in Smallville. Just a preference.

Be that as it may, it's not the showrunners call. If the network wants a show back, it comes back. If they don't want it back, it's gone. They obviously wanted ten seasons of SV. Again, not every single episode was pure gold (I'd never make that argument) but, season by season, there is clear development in the narrative, the characters and (to a lesser degree) the themes of the series. Keeping all of that going while never knowing which season would be their last is a pretty amazing achievement in my mind.

Stockslivevan wrote:I think you can make Clark do plenty of heroic things without kryptonite mutants, it's been done on the show plenty of times and I often felt they were the most poignant.

One major factor in that is that they weren't the norm any more than the Kryptonite mutants were. The two worked hand in hand.

Stockslivevan wrote:I remember the show building up to the moment when the friendship broke because Clark found that secret room, but I found that scene be rather hokey. I remember even Michael Rosenbaum noted the absurdity of the whole thing during an interview where by the time Clark is leaving the room Lex just kinda stands there and tries calling him back in by saying "Clark..." while you see all the displays in behind of him. I dunno, it's just something that distracted me from what's supposed to be a dramatic moment.

It was done that way because it looked dramatic on camera. Realistically, a lot of TV shows could do things like have characters converse on the phone. In terms of communications, that's a lot more efficient than driving to someone's house every time you need to speak to them. But it doesn't work on a dramatic level. Clark storming out of Lex's secret room while he calls out after him after half a season of Lex pissing him off works on that dramatic level.

Stockslivevan wrote:Speaking of Pa, I always felt Glenn Ford made the best Jonathan Kent. I always feel gutted every time his death occurs. John Schneider came close though and if the writers didn't chuck in that horrible gimmick with him showing prejudice against Lex when all the guy did was nothing but good for the Kents, he might have been the best Pa.

Actually, I think you missed the entire point of why Schneider's Pa Kent acted the way he did towards Lex:

"The Sins Of The Father Shall Be Visited On The Son"

Jonathan has lived thru Smallville being GUTTED by Lionel Luthor. How else was he supposed to react to the fruit of his loins, with a wild past of his own?

Apologist Puncher wrote:Actually, I think you missed the entire point of why Schneider's Pa Kent acted the way he did towards Lex:

"The Sins Of The Father Shall Be Visited On The Son"

Jonathan has lived thru Smallville being GUTTED by Lionel Luthor. How else was he supposed to react to the fruit of his loins, with a wild past of his own?

Yep. Plus, it gives Jonathan a flaw that a lot of people can understand but it doesn't alienate anybody. And it allowed for conflict between Clark and Jonathan. It works on a lot of levels.

I find that trait to be detestable, judging someone based on the actions of a father. And even after all Lex did trying to help out the Kents and even stayed in and did farm work at one point, Pa Kent still gives him shit afterward and when something bad happens he immediately blames it on him first as usual. Pa Kent should be better than that, especially since he's the guy Clark looks up to. Maybe what the writers wanted to do was show how Clark was becoming a better person than Pa Kent, but I don't like how it's executed. It just bothers me. Like how even Clark goes back in time to save Lana from death even though he knew someone else close to him would die, makes him a murderer.

Stockslivevan wrote:I find that trait to be detestable, judging someone based on the actions of a father.

It's a sentiment dating all the way back to when The Bible was written.

And even after all Lex did trying to help out the Kents and even stayed in and did farm work at one point, Pa Kent still gives him shit afterward and when something bad happens he immediately blames it on him first as usual. Pa Kent should be better than that, especially since he's the guy Clark looks up to. Maybe what the writers wanted to do was show how Clark was becoming a better person than Pa Kent, but I don't like how it's executed. It just bothers me. Like how even Clark goes back in time to save Lana from death even though he knew someone else close to him would die, makes him a murderer.

In the end, Lex Luthor grows up to be..... Lex Luthor.

So in a way, Jonathan Kent was right to have never trusted him.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

Stockslivevan wrote:I find that trait to be detestable, judging someone based on the actions of a father.

It's a sentiment dating all the way back to when The Bible was written.

It's vile.

In the end, Lex Luthor grows up to be..... Lex Luthor.

So in a way, Jonathan Kent was right to have never trusted him.

At the same time it might have done wonders if Jonathan welcomed Lex, influence him in a positive way. But that's the tragedy of Lex, he tried to be good but couldn't escape his father's shadow that reached as far as the Kent farm.

Stockslivevan wrote:I find that trait to be detestable, judging someone based on the actions of a father. And even after all Lex did trying to help out the Kents and even stayed in and did farm work at one point, Pa Kent still gives him shit afterward and when something bad happens he immediately blames it on him first as usual.

And there was often a germ of truth to it (Insurgence, for example).

Stockslivevan wrote:Pa Kent should be better than that, especially since he's the guy Clark looks up to. Maybe what the writers wanted to do was show how Clark was becoming a better person than Pa Kent, but I don't like how it's executed. It just bothers me.

Jonathan Kent as presented in SV is a good man but he's not a perfect one. He doesn't always make the right call, he doesn't always have the magic answer. Clark looked up to him but I don't think he was ever completely blind to Jonathan's flaws.

Stockslivevan wrote:Like how even Clark goes back in time to save Lana from death even though he knew someone else close to him would die, makes him a murderer.

If the show hadn't dealt with that very issue (9.01- Savior and 10.04- Homecoming), I'd let the criticism stand. But it does. Quite well too. It doesn't absolve Clark of anything, it just gives him a lesson.

Of course, Clark always seemed to be a little more ahead of his Pa as far as ethics.

Stockslivevan wrote:It's vile.

It's also very human.

At the same time it might have done wonders if Jonathan welcomed Lex, influence him in a positive way. But that's the tragedy of Lex, he tried to be good but couldn't escape his father's shadow that reached as far as the Kent farm.

Jonathan was doing what he felt he had to do to protect his son.

I think you were expecting a flawless "Saint" in Jonathan Kent. But that's just not very realistic these days.

Maybe not realistic, but then again we're talking about a TV series about a boy who later grows up to be a superhero that wears red underwear trunks over his blue tights.

Realistic or not, I prefer showing Pa Kent in an optimistic light, showing a young confused Clark that humanity has that potential.

Stockslivevan wrote:Maybe not realistic, but then again we're talking about a TV series about a boy who later grows up to be a superhero that wears red underwear trunks over his blue tights.

I see the irony in this statement.....

Realistic or not, I prefer showing Pa Kent in an optimistic light, showing a young confused Clark that humanity has that potential.

Which they did. He just wasn't perfect.

Stockslivevan wrote:Realistic or not, I prefer showing Pa Kent in an optimistic light, showing a young confused Clark that humanity has that potential.

What Jonathan did was teach Clark that he himself has potential. If anything, Clark in SV is guilty of putting humanity on a bit too high a pedestal.

And for me that's one of the traits that makes Superman.

Plus, he likes dogs.

I love perusing other message boards and seeing people say Cavill's suit HAS to be padded.

You know, 'cuz they SAY SO?

Apologist Puncher wrote:I love perusing other message boards and seeing people say Cavill's suit HAS to be padded.

You know, 'cuz they SAY SO?

Aren't most of the people who use that as a criticism Apologists? (A) Cavill trained like hell for the role and it shows. No need to post pics when he's actively lifting heavy equipment. He already looks built like a brick and (B) even if he was a skinny little bowling alley bartender out in LA, it's a bit late in the game for Apologists to bitch and complain about padding, muscle suits and all that stuff.

thecolorsblend wrote:Aren't most of the people who use that as a criticism Apologists? (A) Cavill trained like hell for the role and it shows. No need to post pics when he's actively lifting heavy equipment. He already looks built like a brick and (B) even if he was a skinny little bowling alley bartender out in LA, it's a bit late in the game for Apologists to bitch and complain about padding, muscle suits and all that stuff.

Apologists, idiots, all the same.

But since I already proved the difference between a padded/non-padded suit when I trashed that TomWelling4Superman moron, we all know the truth.

It is fuunny to see those comments. And we know its bbs since we can see how hard cavill got in shape, and see his muscles showing well in suit. If there is any padding per say, its probably just under aumor shirt/shorts. So he isn't just stuck straight to the suit.

Whether his suit is padded or not, I don't care. All that matters for me is how he plays the role.

Stockslivevan wrote:Whether his suit is padded or not, I don't care. All that matters for me is how he plays the role.

That's nice.

Still not padded.

Of course. The apologists are idiots anyway, even if it were padded it wouldn't a big deal.

Found this guy's art, and he does a pretty good job with the movie suit. Also kind of resembles Cavill a bit:

http://imbong.deviantart.com/







That last one isn't so great, but the first two are pretty good.

Thoughts?