Goodbye Superman!

[myankskent]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
No, I can't agree.

What you're basically theorizing is that they've decided not to let Clark progress or develop (much) because they want to spring it all on us at the end of the series. So, basically, he's running in place until the series finale.

I wouldn't say that Clark is running in place, but let's face it, Clark should be training right now. The fortress was built more than a year ago and Clark still isn't training. From that standpoint, TPTB are definitely making the character run in place.

That doesn't wash for me. There have been plenty of shows, on for 5, 6 or 7 years, in which the characters developed over the entire course of the series. They were a little different in season two than they had been in season one. A little different in season three than they had been in season two. Etcetera.

And the problem with this show is that once Clark starts training and Lex turns totally to the dark side, this show is over. They really don't have the ability to change characters on this show as much as other shows which is why we see a lot of character regression. That's the unfortunate thing with Smallville, there's only so long you can have Clark deny his destiny before it starts getting old.

The writers being unable to show Clark growing and developing over the course of the series shows a lack of creativity and skill on their parts. Instead of letting Clark grow (make mistakes, learn from them, make new mistakes, learn from them, make new mistakes, learn from them, etc.) they've chosing to have Clark make the same old mistakes over and over and over again, and seemingly learn very little as a result.

I agree with you here. Clark should not be making the same mistakes over and over again but again I have to ask, if Clark learned from his mistakes, how does this show last 6 plus years? That's the real problem and that's why we see so much character regression.

[trying2b]

Originally posted by dunlopc
Now I am aware that in the comics clark was never a bumbling idiot. But here's a quote from Chris Reeve (He said, "there must be some difference stylistically between Clark and Superman. Otherwise, you just have a pair of glasses standing in for a character."). Plus he actually looked like Superman from the comics here's a quote from a 1978 review(When Christopher Reeve put on the famous blue, red and yellow suit he looked exactly like he had walked right out of the pages of a Curt Swan-Murphy Anderson drawn Superman comic book. There could not have been a better choice for the Man of Steel. ).

What are you talking about? The Curt Swan-Murphy Anderson before the 1986 re-vamp Clark was just that...a bumbling, stumbling dork with glasses that everyone picked on. Before you start stating something maybe you should check your facts first. Or maybe you just got your statement mixed up, I don't know.

And if you don't believe me I have about 200 Action and 150 Superman comics dating from about 1968 to about 1981.

A quote from the Superman Ecylopedia

In addition to wearing ordinary street clothes and slightly altering his facial appearance with eye-glasses to conceal the fact that he is secretly Superman, Clark Kent exhibits qualities of personality far removed from the ones he displays as Superman. The chronicles repeatedly describe Clark Kent as meek, mild-mannered, sickly, weak, submissive, and even spineless. Clark Kent is afraid of dogs, afraid of heights, and willing to let almost anyone push him around.

In his own words, "My meek behavior is the perfect disguise for my real identity as Superman!"

[dunlopc]

No need to be nasty I've been told many times and read on this forum that Chris Reeves Clark Kent is all wrong and George Reeves and Dean Cains was more accurate to the comics. My fav Superman is Chris Reeve and much preferred his explanation as to why he played Clark they way he did which is why I copied and pasted quotes from The Chris Reeve website they are not my actual words.

[trying2b]

I wan't getting nasty. I just wanted you to know that your facts were not accurate.

On another note, I'm not sure that I undersand when people say Clark has progressed on the show. IMHO I think the writers have come up with their continuity. Superman thru the ages has changed every 10 years so who to say who is wrong or right?

[Timester]

Originally posted by trying2b
I wan't getting nasty. I just wanted you to know that your facts were not accurate.

On another note, I'm not sure that I undersand when people say Clark has progressed on the show. IMHO I think the writers have come up with their continuity. Superman thru the ages has changed every 10 years so who to say who is wrong or right?

The 70 years of Superman canon. Yes, his background changed every 20 years, but his character is the same since Action Comics #1. Even in today's comics/cartoon shows. Smallville is the only show that has ever change the character, and not for a better way.

[Dannyblue1]

Originally posted by myankskent
And the problem with this show is that once Clark starts training and Lex turns totally to the dark side, this show is over. They really don't have the ability to change characters on this show as much as other shows which is why we see a lot of character regression. That's the unfortunate thing with Smallville, there's only so long you can have Clark deny his destiny before it starts getting old.

See, when I talk about Clark developing, I don't mean physical, external things like him going off to train or putting on the suit. I mean "development" in terms of the internal and emotional.

People grow through their experiences. You put your hand on a hot stove eye the first time because you don't know better. When you get burned, you learn that stove eyes are hot, and you shouldn't put your hand on them. So, next time, you don't.

With Clark, he puts his hand on the stove eye and gets burned. Now, does he learn from that. Not from what we see. Either he's forgetting the lesson and has to learn it again, or he chooses to believe the next time he touches the stove eye will be different. Either way, it doesn't say much for his characters ability to grow.

I agree with you here. Clark should not be making the same mistakes over and over again but again I have to ask, if Clark learned from his mistakes, how does this show last 6 plus years?

By making brand new mistakes.

That's one of the things I loved about Angel. He always learned and grew as a result of his mistakes. That didn't keep him from making new, bigger mistakes. And he learned from those too.

It's like the producers of SV have decided there are only a few things Clark needs to learn. Instead of being creative and finding new lessons for the character, they make him learn, forget, and relearn the same lessons over and over again.

[trying2b]

Originally posted by Timester
Even in today's comics/cartoon shows. Smallville is the only show that has ever change the character, and not for a better way.

Well that's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions? And since you live in Europe how is it that you get to even watch the program the same time that we do?

[cmm]

Originally posted by Dannyblue1
See, when I talk about Clark developing, I don't mean physical, external things like him going off to train or putting on the suit. I mean "development" in terms of the internal and emotional.

People grow through their experiences. You put your hand on a hot stove eye the first time because you don't know better. When you get burned, you learn that stove eyes are hot, and you shouldn't put your hand on them. So, next time, you don't.

With Clark, he puts his hand on the stove eye and gets burned. Now, does he learn from that. Not from what we see. Either he's forgetting the lesson and has to learn it again, or he chooses to believe the next time he touches the stove eye will be different. Either way, it doesn't say much for his characters ability to grow.



By making brand new mistakes.

That's one of the things I loved about Angel. He always learned and grew as a result of his mistakes. That didn't keep him from making new, bigger mistakes. And he learned from those too.

It's like the producers of SV have decided there are only a few things Clark needs to learn. Instead of being creative and finding new lessons for the character, they make him learn, forget, and relearn the same lessons over and over again.

Word. You've said everything i've been trying to say for ages. I just don't understand why the writers don't seem to understand that.

[Timester]

Originally posted by trying2b
Well that's your opinion and you know what they say about opinions? And since you live in Europe how is it that you get to even watch the program the same time that we do?

How can be the fact that he never changed the last 70 years my opinion?

Right now, Smallville's Clark is nothing more than a lousy copy of Peter Parker.

[trying2b]

Uh huh so your 70 years old and have been illegally downloading?

[Mr. Wrong]

The CK of this SV has run the gamut and can really only go to the FOS at this point IMHO. Nothing wrong with next season being a transition one where we see ten years pass over the hiatus and have Superman emerge in the opening. The Superman saga tends to sever ties with Smallville at this point but TPTB could be forgiven for allowing us to see a more realistic transition. After all it appears in this version of SV that Metropolis is not very far away at all. Unlike the Sup.Saga where Kansas is in Kansas and Metropolis is more like New York. Not the same logistics at all. Therefore TPTB should be allowed to continue to use some poetic license with their depiction of Superman. However, the core values and storyline should not be tampered with. Traditionalists should be respected but newagers have a right to fall in love with a 21st century superhero also. I guess I'm trying to say, lets all try to have our cake and eat it to!LOL