Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UK Oponions

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Krypto500

    This show is about fleshing out the character, it's about exploring and challenging our preconceptions of Clark AND Superman. The Superman-never-kills rule is one assumption which should be examined in much more detail than it got in "Vengeance".
    Hi Krypto! I would definitley like to see that assumption being examined more closely. They hinted at it too in Pariah when Clark was all set to strangle Alicia's killer. It was a powerful scene that TW played very well I thought. Comic folklore says that Superman must always attempt to bring the villain to justice but I think you're right to point out, psycosis, that Clark ISN'T yet that superhero who stands for truth, justice and the "American Way" (whatever that is!). In fact, what with all the post-modern references to previous versions of Superman that they poke fun at, it's probably safe to assume that the producers are willing to play around with the 50's notion of the comic book hero. Maybe in S6 this is one of the roads that they will follow. Not that I expect to see Clark kill anyone but I wouldn't be surprised to see his restraint and composure pushed to the limits by Lionel and Martha's relationship. Then of course you'll have Lex's ever decreasing spiral into darkness (which certainly seems to be the direction for the character next season - hurrah!) all of which will test Clark and force him to develop an ethos or code of conduct for dealing with villains who have an attachment on some kind of emotional level.

    Originally posted by psycosis

    it would be a shame to go back from the darker direction they have taken Lex, in some ways maybe Clark wishes he could start to trust Lex again - but with all that’s happened in the past I don't think he could forget it so easily.
    I agree with you psycosis - I can't see how the script writers could go back to an S1, S2 or S3 relationship even if they wanted to. Clark's pomposity is really starting to annoy Lex so that whenever they happen to talk it generally involves put-downs and frowns. Although this is great from the perspective of comic mythology, it doesn't really lend itself to any kind of "proper" interaction, or at least the kind of interaction that we are used to seeing between the two main characters. If you take out Lex's rather wistful attempt at reconciliation in this episode, the last time I can recall them conversing in any kind of normal sense is the final scene in Bound, when Lex asks Clark not to give up on him. So on the one hand I want to see Lex get darker and darker, but on the other I miss the sort of scenes that allow for conversation.
    Last edited by Lex Dance; 05-20-2006, 01:40 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Lex Dance
      They hinted at it too in Pariah when Clark was all set to strangle Alicia's killer ...
      Hey Lex Dance ... Yeah, good point, that particular scene slipped my mind. You're right that there are parallels between that, "Vengeance" and "Mercy". Interestingly, it was Lois who persuaded Clark not to strangle 'Sandman Tim', just as it was the thought of Jonathan in "Vengeance" who kept him from choking the life out of the anonymous goon.

      So we can conclude that Superman's whole moral code - like Clark's - will likely be based largely on his attachment to family and friends rather than the kind of 'philosophical/theological debate' depicted in Superman I when Clark got to the FoS. That incarnation seemed to imply that Clark was still very confused about his purpose when he left Smallville, and that he only really decided to fight for "truth, justice..." after meeting Jor-El. Apparently, that's not going to be the case on this show.

      To tie that in with psycosis' "What If..." scenario, how would that be different if there were no family or friends? It could be a Bizarro Smallville episode where Clark grows up without Jonathan and Martha to guide him and where no code of ethics is instilled, resulting in something akin to the red K-influenced Kal in the "Exile"/"Phoenix" arc. Could make for an interesting role reversal between Clark and Lex and hark back to Lex's ideas about nature/nurture.

      Clark's pomposity is really starting to annoy Lex so that whenever they happen to talk it generally involves put-downs and frowns.
      That pomposity is starting to annoy me as well, doesn't it annoy you too? Are we really expected to support such an unforgiving stance and say "Yup, Clark's fully justified in glaring like that!"?!?

      If you take out Lex's rather wistful attempt at reconciliation in this episode, the last time I can recall them conversing in any kind of normal sense is the final scene in Bound ...
      The one other instance being that rather delightful scene between them outside the Kent house in "Lexmas" where they look back on their friendship. If only it could turn out that way ...

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Krypto500
        That incarnation seemed to imply that Clark was still very confused about his purpose when he left Smallville, and that he only really decided to fight for "truth, justice..." after meeting Jor-El. Apparently, that's not going to be the case on this show.
        Interesting point Krypto! It's been a while since I watched Superman but I've been thinking about taking another look (what with the imminent arrival of Superman Returns). I suppose it stands to reason that Tom Welling's Clark stands for truth and justice because John Schneider's Jonathan and Marlon Brando's Jor-El are essentially interchangeable. Perhaps this is the reason why the producers have decided to portray Terence Stamp's Jor-El as authoritarian and oppressive? It also adds a further dimension to the nature/nurture debate that defines Lex and Lionel's relationship. Maybe because Jonathan was established as such a fundamental role-model in Clark's life right from Pilot, they decided that there was no need for a benevolent Jor-El in the Brando mould. As we've already debated, I've no doubt this Jor-El will reconcile himself with Clark before Smallville ends, but right now Kal-El's purpose is still to conquer. And that makes for a fanatastic twist to the mythology, as well as an excellent mirroring of Lex's story.

        Originally posted by Krypto500
        To tie that in with psycosis' "What If..." scenario, how would that be different if there were no family or friends?
        It depends how 'Bizarro' you want to get! I can think of at least one 'super'hero who metes out justice in a very different way as a result of having no family and friends during the formative years (apart from his butler!) But I take your point, if Clark had no-one to care for him and no positive role-models we'd see a monster. Interestingly, were that to happen, how would Jor-El rein him in (assuming that "Clark" wasn't already commanding the planet with due Kryptonian decorum)?

        Originally posted by Krypto500

        That pomposity is starting to annoy me as well, doesn't it annoy you too?
        In all honesty? No. Clark has every right to be angry at Lex - not because of the suspiscion and investigation, not even because of his closeness with Lana, but because of the human rights atrocities he's seen Lex preside over in Aqua and Cyborg. Both episodes are nods to the "evil genius" Lex of the comics, and in turn Clark's frowning reminds me of the future Superman, floating 20 storeys up outside the offices at LexCorps, arms folded and scowling! I do agree however that Clark is a bit divvy being pompous so early in his 'career' - what was that Lionel once said about never revealing your hand?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Lex Dance
          ... John Schneider's Jonathan and Marlon Brando's Jor-El are essentially interchangeable. Perhaps this is the reason why the producers have decided to portray Terence Stamp's Jor-El as authoritarian and oppressive?
          Hi Lex Dance ... Very well said. In 'SV', Jonathan seems to represent Clark's ethical guiding light, whereas Jor-El is the one spurring him on to fulfil his destiny and embrace his heritage.

          ... how would Jor-El rein him in (assuming that "Clark" wasn't already commanding the planet with due Kryptonian decorum)?
          Given the characterization of Kal on red K, chances are Bizarro Clark would be striving for the same things Lex will: wealth, power, control, subservience from the population. This would probably also include removing Jor-El's influence. If the ship hadn't been "green K'd" as it was in this timeline, Clark would toss it into space, he'd level the Kawatchi caves, and he'd melt down the FoS. The likely payback from Jor-El would be the El-crest (what I like to call the reverse 'S') burned into Clark's chest for a while, but I'm sure this Clark's ingenuity and deviousness would find a way around even that.

          Clark has every right to be angry at Lex ... because of the human rights atrocities he's seen Lex preside over in Aqua and Cyborg.
          Then Clark needs to confront Lex about it and report Lex to the police! That's what Superman - even the young Superman - should and would do. Although as we've discussed, this boy ain't no Superman.

          We've mentioned how Lex is just waiting for that one concrete piece of evidence on Clark to shout "I KNEW IT!" and expose him. Perhaps it also works the other way now: Clark will take the first available shred of proof that Lex is blatantly breaking the law and put him away. He's had opportunities in the episodes you mention, though, and he did nothing. Do you think that might have changed over the last couple of episodes?
          Last edited by Krypto500; 05-21-2006, 03:29 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Krypto500
            The likely payback from Jor-El would be the El-crest (what I like to call the reverse 'S') burned into Clark's chest for a while.
            Good one! I had forgotten Jor-El could do that! He also had the power to turn Clark into the Kal-El that HE wanted in the S3 finale/S4 premiere arc - maybe he would do the same again? As for the El-crest, I've always thought of it as the infinity sign. I hope it's something that gets explored before the end of Smallville.
            Originally posted by Krypto500
            Then Clark needs to confront Lex about it and report Lex to the police! That's what Superman - even the young Superman - should and would do. Although as we've discussed, this boy ain't no Superman.
            I think this would be problematic for Clark - who as you say is not Superman. Without the guise of Superman to "hide" behind, Clark would have an awful lot of explaining to do. How did he evade security? How did he break out two "prisoners" (one break-out was particularly explosive)? How could he be in Metropolis and Smallville at the same time? etc. I don't think Clark has any intention of shopping Lex any time soon (he'll be saving that for the cape and underpants) so I guess the frowns and pompous attitude are his way of saying “I don't agree with any of this.” What Clark hasn’t realised is that this also sends out the message that he isn’t prepared to stand up to Lex. Still, there’s plenty of time for that in both of their futures!
            Originally posted by Krypto500
            He's had opportunities (to put Lex away) in the episodes you mention, though, and he did nothing. Do you think that might have changed over the last couple of episodes?
            Are you referring to the relationship with Lana? The jealous lover psychology might come into play and motivate Clark to punish Lex. However, when Clark does find out about Lex and Lana (which I’m assuming will happen before the season ends), I’m not sure if it will provoke the immediate fireworks you often see in love triangle storylines.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Lex Dance
              As for the El-crest, I've always thought of it as the infinity sign. I hope it's something that gets explored before the end of Smallville.
              The family crest of the El's is more like the figure 8 - with the s portion of it being more prominent - encased within the diamond shaped shield. This is also the current Kryptoian symbol for the letter S.
              How clear Smallville will make this remains to be seen - but chances are it'll always remain unknown apart from a few of the Superman fans.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by psycosis
                How clear Smallville will make this remains to be seen - but chances are it'll always remain unknown apart from a few of the Superman fans.
                Some explanation of it would be good, I think. That and the costume, which was never really explained in the Donner film; it's like, "Where did they come from?"

                Originally posted by Lex Dance
                I guess the frowns and pompous attitude are [Clark's] way of saying “I don't agree with [what Lex is doing].” What Clark hasn’t realised is that this also sends out the message that he isn’t prepared to stand up to Lex. Still, there’s plenty of time for that in both of their futures!
                "isn't prepared to stand up to Lex"? (my emphasis)

                I'm tempted to word it more strongly and say he isn't able to stand up to him. Like you say, Clark would have an awful lot of explaining to do, and Lex would likely drag him down along with himself. Perhaps Clark has already realised this? It's one thing to threaten Lionel with 'vengeance' and the promise that Lionel will regret surviving the events of "Mercy", but it's another to pull the 'I'll-take-you-to-the-authorities!' card with a Luthor. After the "Shattered"/"Asylum" arc (which you've mentioned is one of your favourites, Lex Dance ), when Clark and Chloe tried so hard to expose Lionel and wound up getting people killed in the process, Clark has surely learned that going down the official or legal avenues against the Luthors just doesn't pay.

                These guys like to play dirty, and Lex sadly has a lot more experience when it comes to bending and dodging the law than Clark does.

                Clark needs to stop glaring and put together evidence that Lex can't weasel or bribe his way out of. He needs a Superman-ly kind of resolution and determination to put this guy away.

                Plenty of time in their futures to explore this, yes, but limited time on the show! And they have to at least scrape the surface of that iassue before the conclusion!

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Krypto500
                  Some explanation of it would be good, I think. That and the costume, which was never really explained in the Donner film; it's like, "Where did they come from?"
                  It would be nice to hear more on the El crest and exactly what it stands for - I always assumed he got his costume from Jor-el in the Donner film, but it's never fully explained.

                  I never liked the Martha sewing it together explanation ether, if we ever do see the costume in Smallville (I know technically we've seen part of it from the guy that could see how people would die) I hope it is explained properly.
                  The one thing that always puzzled me if the figure 8 is the family crest would that not be what we see Superman wear on his suit instead of the S?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Quite, psycosis.

                    But then isn't it supposed to be one of those weird coincidences that the insignia on the superhero's chest - a symbol in an alien language - just happens to be the first letter of the superhero's name? AND the first letter of the superhero's hometown? (Love that gag in SIII when Clark's invited to the reunion and displays the 'S' logo on the sweater across his chest. "Err, um, - Smallville?"

                    Wasn't the concept in "Lois & Clark" that Martha and Jonathan found the logo on an embroidery pattern in Clark's ship, and that Martha just thought it would 'look good' on the front of Clark's costume?

                    I sincerely hope this show will come up with a better explanation than that.

                    If they do at all, that is? We're into speculation on the end of the show there, I think? I'm not one of the fans who would insist on seeing TW wearing the suit, but certainly discovering the suit and how he's going to use his powers to help the planet should be included.

                    That said, perhaps part of what was cool about the Donner take (he just, sort of, APPEARS in the suit ) was the mystery surrounding the superhero. Maybe not everything needs to be explained?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by psycosis

                      I never liked the Martha sewing it together explanation ether, if we ever do see the costume in Smallville (I know technically we've seen part of it from the guy that could see how people would die) I hope it is explained properly.
                      The one thing that always puzzled me if the figure 8 is the family crest would that not be what we see Superman wear on his suit instead of the S?
                      Hi psycosis. This got me thinking! I looked back at my copy of Superman: Birthright which starts off with Jor-El and Lara putting Kal-El in the spaceship. Now in this story Jor-El is wearing a very Superman-like costume (all blues and reds) which sports the Superman/English 'S'. Is this consistent with other Superman graphic novels and storylines? I don't own many! As for Donner's film, I remember Jor-El wearing a black and white costume with the crest, but I'm having trouble recalling whether it's an English 'S' or the Kryptonian 'S' you mentioned earlier.
                      I assume Clark decides to wear an English 'S' on his costume to show his affiliation with the human race.
                      As for Martha sewing the costumes, it troubled me that his costume could be made out of such flimsy material - especially as it can withstand bullets and fire and all sorts!
                      I like the way they toughened up Batman's suit in Batman Returns. I wonder if Singer intends to give a similar explanation in the new film?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Lex Dance
                        I remember Jor-El wearing a black and white costume with the crest, but I'm having trouble recalling whether it's an English 'S' or the Kryptonian 'S' you mentioned earlier.

                        As for Martha sewing the costumes, it troubled me that his costume could be made out of such flimsy material - especially as it can withstand bullets and fire and all sorts!

                        I like the way they toughened up Batman's suit in Batman Returns. I wonder if Singer intends to give a similar explanation in the new film?
                        Well it is the English S - I’m sure it's the same in most the comics, but it's still something I feel is never really explained properly, it's one of these plot devices they introduced to explain why Sups might wear an S on his chest.

                        There is that really annoying theory I personally despise that says Superman has a protective aura surrounding his body - so whatever he's wearing won't be ripped.
                        this works with people too, though it's always fire there protected from - bullets would probably be pushing it!

                        I'm sure I read somewhere the suit in Returns will be made of "Kryptoian technology" also there a loads of little S's throughout the suit (Spider-man has webs), the shield is also raised above the costume.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X
                        😀
                        🥰
                        🤢
                        😎
                        😡
                        👍
                        👎