Man of Steel 2nd Promo Trailer

[misslane38]

I watched plenty of episodes from the entire run and own several seasons on DVD. I know it's not a Superman story and I never expected it to be. That still doesn't make it a good show, because it was not a good show. It had corny scripts, which is fine, and bad to terrible acting from the leads, which is not fine. It's not important, and it certainly won't be much more than a footnote in 40 years. It's not much more than a footnote now.

Did you watch the entire show? I don't know how you can accurately assess something of which you lack complete knowledge. It had corny scripts? You said you love the Silver Age, right? That's a treasure trove of corny. Michael Rosenbaum gave a great performance as Lex. John Schneider, Annette O'Toole, John Glover, Allison Mack, Erica Durance, and Cassidy Freeman were good as well. Tom Welling was neither great nor terrible. When truly called upon, Welling could hit it out of the park. I have no idea what gives you the authority to judge whether something is important or not, especially what will be important forty years from now. It's not more than a footnote now. It revolutionized the character of Lex Luthor and the Clark/Lois relationship. The way it dealt with relatable issues like identity and public rejection continue to influence comics today, especially media properties aimed at the broader public. Man of Steel and Earth One evoke many similarities to Smallville.

Those are the elements that have been recycled over and over since they were first introduced. And those were all new elements at the time. The failure in too much of the last 25 years of Superman has been the reuse of old ideas and the exclusion of new ones. That's why the Death and Return of Superman was the best story of this period-because it brought in actual new ideas and characters: Doomsday, Eradicator, Steel, Superboy, Cyborg Superman and the marriage. That was the only real forward movement the character has had, everything else-Byrne's Man of Steel, the Milton Fine Brainiac, Matrix Supergirl, etc, were revamps of previous concepts that did not equal the originals and did not need to be done.

What's your point? My point is that judging every interpretation of Superman as a failure because it does not replicate the Silver Age is foolish. The only way innovation and progress is going to happen is if old elements are reinterpreted along with new elements.

The best stuff in Smallville was cribbed from the Silver Age. And the show was really over a long time ago, they just padded it to keep it going. It's a non-factor as far as importance.

No, it was not. The Clark/Lex friendship as depicted on the show may have had its basic roots in the Silver Age, but the show did much more nuanced stuff with it. One of the best things about the show was the Clark/Lois romance, which was nothing close to resembling the Silver age. The show isn't even over now, as it is selling remarkably well in comic form. It is way too early to tell how important the show will be considered historically.

I don't see any of those as very important or new.

Lois meeting Clark before he's Superman has only been done as silly one-shot stories. What Smallville and Man of Steel did is to show how Lois is integral to Clark becoming Superman. The emotional and psychological themes the trailer hints at the film exploring are all primarily rooted in Smallville. Jonathan's attitude, in particular, is analogous to how the character was presented on Smallville.

Smallville is not a bigger series than any of those. Not even close.

Yet it sold more DVDs than those shows.

DKR has been a huge influence on how people perceive Superman, as has the 90's "Death of". For years what people wanted for a Superman movie was Doomsday. Smallville is not as important as either of those.

You don't think Smallville has influenced how people perceive Superman and his supporting cast? Smallville is the reason why Green Arrow is now gaining popularity. Arrow would not have been possible without Smallville. Erica Durance has redefined Lois Lane. Her version of the character has received a lot of praise. In terms of pop culture prominence, Smallville's Lois and Clark continue to make "best couple" lists. Almost everyone points to Rosenbaum's Luthor as the template for how to do right by the character. Comics are only a tiny sliver of what the public knows or appreciates about versions of Superman.

Clark was a real character in the Bronze Age. You said you've read Maggin. You should understand exactly what Clark is. Clark was a real character that Superman created. Superman created him for a purpose, but Clark took a life of his own. He is not and should not just be the same character as Superman without the cape on. That's why Byrne did to him.

Superman does not create Clark. Superman IS Clark. Clark IS Superman. I've read Maggin's take, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. A man who is literally two different people is a horrific idea. I'd like to think Superman doesn't view any part of his life as just a really elaborate and extended performance. Byrne's take made Clark the real person and Superman the mask, which was not what was portrayed in the Silver Age, Bronze Age, Maggin's novels, or Reeve's films. So when anyone says Byrne was inspired by Reeve's Superman, I can see how his version of Krypton lines up with that assertion but not his conceptualization of the Clark/Superman identity.

The stories were often silly, but Superman himself was presented as an adult and a father figure.

He was not presented as an adult in most of those stories. He was Peter Pan who is quite the antithesis of a father figure.

He was not a naive child and a mindless do-gooder.

Who said he was mindless or naive?

A good bit of the best Silver Age stories deal with his feeling of loss and alienation and him trying to understand his place in the world. You make it sound like every panel of every story is Jimmy Olsen Turtle Boy. If you are as well read as you say, then you know that's just not true.

If you are as well read as you say you are, then you would know that the stories that deal seriously with Superman's feelings of loss and alienation are few and far between. Most of the time he's a silly hero who doesn't seem to want to grow up.

It wouldn't matter which version of Superman Welling was playing, or what character Welling was playing, period. The guy can't act.

Welling is never going to win any awards for acting, but he wasn't awful. Frankly, over ten years, I saw him replicate most of what Reeve captured in four films. I'm not sure what acting ability has to do with whether his version of Clark will ultimately be deemed important or not.









This video is also a good look at Tom's acting and the relationship between Jonathan and Clark on Smallville.

[Kurosawa]

Did you watch the entire show? I don't know how you can accurately assess something of which you lack complete knowledge. It had corny scripts? You said you love the Silver Age, right? That's a treasure trove of corny. Michael Rosenbaum gave a great performance as Lex. John Schneider, Annette O'Toole, John Glover, Allison Mack, Erica Durance, and Cassidy Freeman were good as well. Tom Welling was neither great nor terrible. When truly called upon, Welling could hit it out of the park. I have no idea what gives you the authority to judge whether something is important or not, especially what will be important forty years from now. It's not more than a footnote now. It revolutionized the character of Lex Luthor and the Clark/Lois relationship. The way it dealt with relatable issues like identity and public rejection continue to influence comics today, especially media properties aimed at the broader public. Man of Steel and Earth One evoke many similarities to Smallville.

I said corny scripts were not the issue, the bad acting was. Welling is a very poor actor, Kreuk is near-unwatchable, Allison Mack is poor, Durance is corny as hell but beautiful enough that she gets by a little (a better Denise Richards, really), and Hartley was terrible. The older actors were better but none them were as good as Rosenbaum. He made that show. I watched it pretty steady on until he left, the I watched bits and pieces of the last two seasons. Corny stories work if the actors are sincere. The actors on Smallville failed to convince me that they were sincere.

What's your point? My point is that judging every interpretation of Superman as a failure because it does not replicate the Silver Age is foolish. The only way innovation and progress is going to happen is if old elements are reinterpreted along with new elements.

The Silver Age is where all the later versions have taken the lions share of their inspiration. That's not opinion, that's fact.

No, it was not. The Clark/Lex friendship as depicted on the show may have had its basic roots in the Silver Age, but the show did much more nuanced stuff with it. One of the best things about the show was the Clark/Lois romance, which was nothing close to resembling the Silver age. The show isn't even over now, as it is selling remarkably well in comic form. It is way too early to tell how important the show will be considered historically.

Maggin did way better stuff in his novels with their friendship than Smallville ever did. The Clark/Lois relationship was okay but the actors were so corny it was hard for me to watch. And if I had to hear about Clark's "destiny" one more time on that show I think I'd pull my hair out. At least the corny 60's stuff was corny in a fun, psychotic way.

Lois meeting Clark before he's Superman has only been done as silly one-shot stories. What Smallville and Man of Steel did is to show how Lois is integral to Clark becoming Superman. The emotional and psychological themes the trailer hints at the film exploring are all primarily rooted in Smallville. Jonathan's attitude, in particular, is analogous to how the character was presented on Smallville.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that it's good. Superman should create himself with some help from his parents if he's Superboy first, and that's it, IMO. And Jonathan's attitude in both Smallville and maybe in MOS is wrong. Clark should become Superman because of Jonathan Kent, not despite of Jonathan Kent. To me, that's just another instance of Hollywood destroying father figures by making them morally weak. Jonathan Kent is not just any other dad, he's supposed to be of unusually high morals. Think back to Maggin's books. THAT is an inspirational Jonathan Kent.

Yet it sold more DVDs than those shows.

Irrelevant. Those other shows were top ten shows. Much, much bigger than Smallville, and some of the actors from them have become movie stars. It's not even close.

You don't think Smallville has influenced how people perceive Superman and his supporting cast? Smallville is the reason why Green Arrow is now gaining popularity. Arrow would not have been possible without Smallville. Erica Durance has redefined Lois Lane. Her version of the character has received a lot of praise. In terms of pop culture prominence, Smallville's Lois and Clark continue to make "best couple" lists. Almost everyone points to Rosenbaum's Luthor as the template for how to do right by the character. Comics are only a tiny sliver of what the public knows or appreciates about versions of Superman.

I find the Arrow show very, very unfortunate. Durance tried her best as Lois, but she is very limited as an actress. The best live action Lois remains Teri Hatcher until MOS comes out, when I expect Amy Adams to easily pass her. I am not into shipping so I don't care about couple lists. I do think Rosenbaum's Luthor is great.

Superman does not create Clark. Superman IS Clark. Clark IS Superman. I've read Maggin's take, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. A man who is literally two different people is a horrific idea. I'd like to think Superman doesn't view any part of his life as just a really elaborate and extended performance. Byrne's take made Clark the real person and Superman the mask, which was not what was portrayed in the Silver Age, Bronze Age, Maggin's novels, or Reeve's films. So when anyone says Byrne was inspired by Reeve's Superman, I can see how his version of Krypton lines up with that assertion but not his conceptualization of the Clark/Superman identity.

Well, I agree completely with Maggin's ideas on Clark. And Maggin's ideas on Clark come from Siegel and Shuster, and they created Superman, not Maggin, not Byrne, not Donner and not Gough and Millar. If Clark is not timid and meek, if he looks and acts and feels just like Superman, then there is no reason to even have Clark. The biggest loss in the 1986 revamp was the loss of Clark Kent. Clark is a persona that Superman created but over time he took on a life of his own, IMO. Clark represents Superman's vulnerable side and without him the character just lost too much fragility and humanity. The timid Clark was just as big a part of Superman's popularity as any of the superpowers.

He was not presented as an adult in most of those stories. He was Peter Pan who is quite the antithesis of a father figure.

Quite the opposite. There's a reason Alex Ross depicts Superman the way he does.

Who said he was mindless or naive?

He was. He was very childish and naive. He was a Lil Abner hayseed under Byrne.

If you are as well read as you say you are, then you would know that the stories that deal seriously with Superman's feelings of loss and alienation are few and far between. Most of the time he's a silly hero who doesn't seem to want to grow up.

Some were, some were not. Just because every story was not like that doesn't mean that there were not several ones that were, nor does it change the fact that those stories were all classics. I said many of the stories were silly. I guess you conveniently missed that.

Welling is never going to win any awards for acting, but he wasn't awful. Frankly, over ten years, I saw him replicate most of what Reeve captured in four films. I'm not sure what acting ability has to do with whether his version of Clark will ultimately be deemed important or not.









This video is also a good look at Tom's acting and the relationship between Jonathan and Clark on Smallville.

Welling can't act. He's nowhere near the quality of Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh did a better job of aping Reeve than Welling ever did. Cavill is a real actor and his portrayal will be the next definer of Superman to the general public.

[LunarMoon]

The Silver Age is where all the later versions have taken the lions share of their inspiration. That's not opinion, that's fact.

Superficial similarities. Even the so called Silver Age revival instated by Geoff Johns merely revives the most superficial of traits, such as the reemergence of Hal Jordan or Barry Allen, whilst maintaining a mood that is antithetic to that of the Silver Age, though today’s comics would certainly be of interest if what you said was true.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that it's good. Superman should create himself with some help from his parents if he's Superboy first, and that's it, IMO. And Jonathan's attitude in both Smallville and maybe in MOS is wrong. Clark should become Superman because of Jonathan Kent, not despite of Jonathan Kent. To me, that's just another instance of Hollywood destroying father figures by making them morally weak. Jonathan Kent is not just any other dad, he's supposed to be of unusually high morals. Think back to Maggin's books. THAT is an inspirational Jonathan Kent.

Minor details such as the above differ from continuity to continuity. Jonathon Kent isn’t even alive in the New 52, much less a demonstratable paragon of moral virtue.

Some were, some were not. Just because every story was not like that doesn't mean that there were not several ones that were, nor does it change the fact that those stories were all classics. I said many of the stories were silly. I guess you conveniently missed that.

None of the stories were classics. Name one Superman story from the Silver Age that is heavily revered, or even known as anything more than a footnote today. Works like Neil Gaiman’s Sandman, Alan Moore’s For the Man Who Has Everything, Watchmen, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, as well as, outside the comic book medium, David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia are regarded as classics because they satisfy all of these qualities and have stood the test of time. Can you honestly say that about any of the DC comics from the 60s, whilst placing them into the same tier as the above?

In addition, if 99% of the stories from the era are indeed silly and non-contemplative, then you shouldn’t be surprised when that becomes the general assessment for it. If there was but one work from the Silver Age on the level of Watchmen, then it would be the exception that proves the rule.

[misslane38]

I said corny scripts were not the issue, the bad acting was. Welling is a very poor actor, Kreuk is near-unwatchable, Allison Mack is poor, Durance is corny as hell but beautiful enough that she gets by a little (a better Denise Richards, really), and Hartley was terrible. The older actors were better but none them were as good as Rosenbaum. He made that show. I watched it pretty steady on until he left, the I watched bits and pieces of the last two seasons. Corny stories work if the actors are sincere. The actors on Smallville failed to convince me that they were sincere.

Even good actors can't do much with not so stellar writing. I'm glad you enjoyed Rosenbaum's Lex. Lots of other viewers, who you have no right to judge as any less discerning of quality acting or taste, enjoyed some of the other actors as well. Allison Mack and Erica Durance in particular, along with John Schneider, John Glover, and Annette O'Toole (a few of the latter adults are award nominees and winners for acting) were often complimented by critics and well-liked. Anyway, there's no use debating one's subjective experience. If you didn't feel the actors sincere, then that's how you feel. However, since other people had a different subjective experience and assessment of some of the actor whose performances didn't work for you, it is sufficient enough basis to conclude that what is true for you, and true for others, isn't the objective truth. Thus, it is neither the truth nor a fact that the acting on Smallville was consistently and universally terrible.

The Silver Age is where all the later versions have taken the lions share of their inspiration. That's not opinion, that's fact.

Really? Prove it.

Maggin did way better stuff in his novels with their friendship than Smallville ever did. The Clark/Lois relationship was okay but the actors were so corny it was hard for me to watch. And if I had to hear about Clark's "destiny" one more time on that show I think I'd pull my hair out. At least the corny 60's stuff was corny in a fun, psychotic way.

You like psychotic. I like realistic. Interesting.

That may be so, but that doesn't mean that it's good. Superman should create himself with some help from his parents if he's Superboy first, and that's it, IMO. And Jonathan's attitude in both Smallville and maybe in MOS is wrong. Clark should become Superman because of Jonathan Kent, not despite of Jonathan Kent. To me, that's just another instance of Hollywood destroying father figures by making them morally weak. Jonathan Kent is not just any other dad, he's supposed to be of unusually high morals. Think back to Maggin's books. THAT is an inspirational Jonathan Kent.

Clark isn't becoming Superman despite Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel. Jonathan was simply providing him advice about how to be cautious so as to make the wisest decisions, meaning decisions that consider consequences and timing. He isn't telling his son that it's morally wrong to save people and he's not telling him to never go public. He just wants his son to understand the weight of the decision he is making before he makes it with all of his heart and all of his free will.

Irrelevant. Those other shows were top ten shows. Much, much bigger than Smallville, and some of the actors from them have become movie stars. It's not even close.

Are you being purposefully obtuse at this point? Boasting those other shows' credentials and merits makes Smallville's sales success even more of a triumph because it wasn't all of those things the other shows were yet it sold more units than they did. Accordingly, more people have DVD sets full of episodes that they've watched by themselves or with their families and friends. That's a lot of eyeballs on Smallville, which means its impact is real and perhaps not even fully felt yet.

I find the Arrow show very, very unfortunate. Durance tried her best as Lois, but she is very limited as an actress. The best live action Lois remains Teri Hatcher until MOS comes out, when I expect Amy Adams to easily pass her. I am not into shipping so I don't care about couple lists. I do think Rosenbaum's Luthor is great.

Well, I don't like Arrow either, but I never liked Oliver Queen in any version. Durance? To me, she isn't limited as an actress at all, and I'm not alone. Reviewers of her performance in her new hit show (in Canada) Saving Hope had this to say about her: "Saving Hope is certainly well acted, particularly by [Durance] (David Hiltbrand, Philadelphia Inquirer). [It] boasts a winning lead in Erica Durance. […] who really snags the chance to shine. While a naturally beguiling beauty pre-qualifies her as leading-lady material, the actress invests Alex with enough intelligence and humor to keep the character’s trials and tribulations [so] sympathetic and engaging [that] a higher-profile gig seems warranted (Geoff Berkshire, Variety)." So that's the Philadelphia Inquirer and Variety that think Durance is talented.

Well, I agree completely with Maggin's ideas on Clark. And Maggin's ideas on Clark come from Siegel and Shuster, and they created Superman, not Maggin, not Byrne, not Donner and not Gough and Millar. If Clark is not timid and meek, if he looks and acts and feels just like Superman, then there is no reason to even have Clark. The biggest loss in the 1986 revamp was the loss of Clark Kent. Clark is a persona that Superman created but over time he took on a life of his own, IMO. Clark represents Superman's vulnerable side and without him the character just lost too much fragility and humanity. The timid Clark was just as big a part of Superman's popularity as any of the superpowers.

You didn't watch the rest of Smallville, I can tell. By the end, Welling's Clark Kent deliberately acted the part of the kind of guy you're describing. For an example of Welling's acting, Durance's acting, the Clark/Lois dynamic, and the Clark Kent persona, I suggest you watch this scene from Bryan Q. Miller's "Masquerade" which aired in the show's final season:

Quite the opposite. There's a reason Alex Ross depicts Superman the way he does.

Alex Ross's drawings of Superman aren't a facsimile of Silver Age Superman's characterization.

He was. He was very childish and naive. He was a Lil Abner hayseed under Byrne.

Who's Lil Abner? I can somewhat agree that Byrne's Clark had some naivete, which to me reads as idealism mostly, but I don't agree that he was childish. He didn't seem afraid to take on more adult responsibilities like taking his journalism job seriously and committing to Lois.

Some were, some were not. Just because every story was not like that doesn't mean that there were not several ones that were, nor does it change the fact that those stories were all classics. I said many of the stories were silly. I guess you conveniently missed that.

If many of the stories were silly -- yet you hold them up as the pinnacle of what should be done with the character with no ifs, ands, or buts -- while Smallville can also be said to have its share of silly or corny episodes or moments, then I don't see why one gets precedence over another just because it's older. When I go back and read those books, and I have done so quite recently because I catalogue Lois/Clark moments for a blog I run, a lot of the Silver Age plays like an episode of I Dream of Jeannie or I Love Lucy. Sure, Superman might go up against some robot or space monster, but half the time he's worrying about his secret identity being exposed. Moreover, because the nature of the medium in those days was to have resettable narratives, nothing ever really had any consequences and the characters remained fairly static.

Welling can't act. He's nowhere near the quality of Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh did a better job of aping Reeve than Welling ever did. Cavill is a real actor and his portrayal will be the next definer of Superman to the general public.

There's a chasm between "can't act" and "isn't as good and Christopher Reeve." He may not be as good as Reeve, in general, but Welling could act. He had a myriad of solid performances throughout his ten years as Clark; many of his best closely resembled Reeve's most memorable performances in the Superman films. One of the things I hated about Superman Returns is that they didn't let Routh do his own version of Superman; he was little more than an impressionist. Welling, on the other hand, never tried to ape Reeve. His intent was to create his own version of the character. Cavill is up in the air as far as acting. Reviews for his performance in some of his other roles haven't been the greatest, but I believe he's invested a lot in getting the part right and he's had a lot of support. I hope that he succeeds, because from what I've seen I'd really like for his and Snyder's take on the character to redefine the character for the general public. Since that general public would likely include millions upon millions of people, like Smallville, that's a lot of people exposed to a non-Silver Age modern re-interpretation of the character that you disapprove of.

Look, everyone has a version of the character that they prefer and there are a lot of reasons for why certain individuals and cohorts with certain demographics like some versions more than others. My view has always been as long as the themes or the message of the story remains intact, I can be open. I am even more open when a story is presented to me as a journey whereby the characters might think, feel, and act one way at one point but change (hopefully for the better) as a result of new experiences.

[Kurosawa]

Superficial similarities. Even the so called Silver Age revival instated by Geoff Johns merely revives the most superficial of traits, such as the reemergence of Hal Jordan or Barry Allen, whilst maintaining a mood that is antithetic to that of the Silver Age, though today’s comics would certainly be of interest if what you said was true.

What a bunch of bs. I didn't say modern comics copied Silver Age comics-they are nowhere near as good and are filled with gore and sex. I did say that the latter day Superman comics rewrote Silver Age stories over and over and reused their concepts without coming up with enough new stuff of their own-and when they did come up with new stuff, like the new characters introduced in the Death and Return of Superman-they were well received and well done. My issue with the Post-Crisis stuff (or one of my issues) is that they wasted time rewriting old stories instead of taking the character forward.

Minor details such as the above differ from continuity to continuity. Jonathon Kent isn’t even alive in the New 52, much less a demonstratable paragon of moral virtue.

Read his limited but important appearances in the Action Comics back-ups. Superman's decision to be the Champion of the Oppressed in the nu52 comes directly from Jonathan. It's awesome.

None of the stories were classics. Name one Superman story from the Silver Age that is heavily revered, or even known as anything more than a footnote today. Works like Neil Gaiman’s Sandman, Alan Moore’s For the Man Who Has Everything, Watchmen, Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, as well as, outside the comic book medium, David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia are regarded as classics because they satisfy all of these qualities and have stood the test of time. Can you honestly say that about any of the DC comics from the 60s, whilst placing them into the same tier as the above?

Absolutely. Siegel's Death Of Superman and Superman's Return To Krypton especially. Those are just as great as anything Stan and Jack did in the 60's. Just because they haven't had modern fanboys drooling over them for years doesn't make them just as good or better than Watchmen or any of those other stories noted. You have an incurable prejudice against Silver Age DC and there is no chance it can be changed.

In addition, if 99% of the stories from the era are indeed silly and non-contemplative, then you shouldn’t be surprised when that becomes the general assessment for it. If there was but one work from the Silver Age on the level of Watchmen, then it would be the exception that proves the rule.

Lots of stuff from the Silver Age is as good or better than Watchmen. But you cannot see it, so there is no reason to even discuss it. We will agree to disagree.

[Kurosawa]

Even good actors can't do much with not so stellar writing. I'm glad you enjoyed Rosenbaum's Lex. Lots of other viewers, who you have no right to judge as any less discerning of quality acting or taste, enjoyed some of the other actors as well. Allison Mack and Erica Durance in particular, along with John Schneider, John Glover, and Annette O'Toole (a few of the latter adults are award nominees and winners for acting) were often complimented by critics and well-liked. Anyway, there's no use debating one's subjective experience. If you didn't feel the actors sincere, then that's how you feel. However, since other people had a different subjective experience and assessment of some of the actor whose performances didn't work for you, it is sufficient enough basis to conclude that what is true for you, and true for others, isn't the objective truth. Thus, it is neither the truth nor a fact that the acting on Smallville was consistently and universally terrible.

I've watched enough good and bad movies and shows to tell good and bad acting. And I've seen a lot of good actors elevate poor material. Smallville had decent acting from the supporting case and bad acting from the principals. It was a WB/CW show, they never have good acting.

Really? Prove it.

Almost every Superman storyline Post-Crisis rewrote older stories and introduced new versions of old concepts. I already listed them for you previously. My point is the best Post-Crisis ideas were the new ones, not the old ones rehashed in an inferior manner.

You like psychotic. I like realistic. Interesting.

More like I like fun, you like pretension. If something is gonna be corny as hell it at least needs to be fun.

Clark isn't becoming Superman despite Jonathan Kent in Man of Steel. Jonathan was simply providing him advice about how to be cautious so as to make the wisest decisions, meaning decisions that consider consequences and timing. He isn't telling his son that it's morally wrong to save people and he's not telling him to never go public. He just wants his son to understand the weight of the decision he is making before he makes it with all of his heart and all of his free will.

Neither you or I know the entire context of that scene..although I do admit that I don't know it. We will see.

Are you being purposefully obtuse at this point? Boasting those other shows' credentials and merits makes Smallville's sales success even more of a triumph because it wasn't all of those things the other shows were yet it sold more units than they did. Accordingly, more people have DVD sets full of episodes that they've watched by themselves or with their families and friends. That's a lot of eyeballs on Smallville, which means its impact is real and perhaps not even fully felt yet.

No, I'm just being honest. Smallville was not even a top 100 show. Those other series were top ten shows. I think that's a bigger sign of how popular a show is or was than DVD sales. Smallville was a low rated show on a 4th rate network and it only ever drew ratings because of the Superman name. That's the only reason I ever took any interest in it. It's not a big influence on Superman in general, certainly not on the level of the Donner/Reeve movies which is how the vast majority of the general public know Superman.

Well, I don't like Arrow either, but I never liked Oliver Queen in any version. Durance? To me, she isn't limited as an actress at all, and I'm not alone. Reviewers of her performance in her new hit show (in Canada) Saving Hope had this to say about her: "Saving Hope is certainly well acted, particularly by [Durance] (David Hiltbrand, Philadelphia Inquirer). [It] boasts a winning lead in Erica Durance. […] who really snags the chance to shine. While a naturally beguiling beauty pre-qualifies her as leading-lady material, the actress invests Alex with enough intelligence and humor to keep the character’s trials and tribulations [so] sympathetic and engaging [that] a higher-profile gig seems warranted (Geoff Berkshire, Variety)." So that's the Philadelphia Inquirer and Variety that think Durance is talented.

I love Green Arrow in his liberal loudmouth persona or in his cocky adventurer Batman: The Brave and the Bold persona. On Smallville and on Arrow he's back to being a poor man's Batman, which is a shame. I kinda like Durance but I know good acting when I see it...her best is average. She is very beautiful and she does have some charisma. She's not Amy Adams.

You didn't watch the rest of Smallville, I can tell. By the end, Welling's Clark Kent deliberately acted the part of the kind of guy you're describing. For an example of Welling's acting, Durance's acting, the Clark/Lois dynamic, and the Clark Kent persona, I suggest you watch this scene from Bryan Q. Miller's "Masquerade" which aired in the show's final season:

I watched that one and thought it was cute, although that's not my preference for Superman. I don't really like Lois knowing. I don't like her knowing and I don't like him having a living parent. I like it better when he's alone and he's lonely. That's my personal taste.

[Kurosawa]

Alex Ross's drawings of Superman aren't a facsimile of Silver Age Superman's characterization.



Who's Lil Abner? I can somewhat agree that Byrne's Clark had some naivete, which to me reads as idealism mostly, but I don't agree that he was childish. He didn't seem afraid to take on more adult responsibilities like taking his journalism job seriously and committing to Lois.

You don't know who 'Lil Abner is? One of the greatest comic strips of all time. He's a well-meaning good-hearted country hayseed who had a bunch of adventures. He's a naive hick but a good guy. He is a Candide, a pure optimistic type in a dark world. Check it out sometime. There are several classic newspaper strips that everyone should read, and that is one of them. Another is Walt Kelly's Pogo.

If many of the stories were silly -- yet you hold them up as the pinnacle of what should be done with the character with no ifs, ands, or buts -- while Smallville can also be said to have its share of silly or corny episodes or moments, then I don't see why one gets precedence over another just because it's older. When I go back and read those books, and I have done so quite recently because I catalogue Lois/Clark moments for a blog I run, a lot of the Silver Age plays like an episode of I Dream of Jeannie or I Love Lucy. Sure, Superman might go up against some robot or space monster, but half the time he's worrying about his secret identity being exposed. Moreover, because the nature of the medium in those days was to have resettable narratives, nothing ever really had any consequences and the characters remained fairly static.

Actually, as I have stated before, my personal favorite version of Superman and the direction I think they need to go into now is the early Golden Age Champion of the Oppressed version. That's my favorite. Of the versions that I think are the most influential (Reeve/Donner, Silver/Bronze, George Reeves TV and 90's Death of), the only one I really love is the Bronze Age. The Silver Age was great when it was great and introduced many concepts and characters, but I have never hesitated to say a lot of it was silly, nor do I feel it is the direction for Superman now. I just have no interest in seeing that material redone because the best of it was done great the first time and the worst of it is not worth redoing.

There's a chasm between "can't act" and "isn't as good and Christopher Reeve." He may not be as good as Reeve, in general, but Welling could act. He had a myriad of solid performances throughout his ten years as Clark; many of his best closely resembled Reeve's most memorable performances in the Superman films. One of the things I hated about Superman Returns is that they didn't let Routh do his own version of Superman; he was little more than an impressionist. Welling, on the other hand, never tried to ape Reeve. His intent was to create his own version of the character. Cavill is up in the air as far as acting. Reviews for his performance in some of his other roles haven't been the greatest, but I believe he's invested a lot in getting the part right and he's had a lot of support. I hope that he succeeds, because from what I've seen I'd really like for his and Snyder's take on the character to redefine the character for the general public. Since that general public would likely include millions upon millions of people, like Smallville, that's a lot of people exposed to a non-Silver Age modern re-interpretation of the character that you disapprove of.

I am not impressed by Welling. He seems like a good guy and all, but I am not impressed by him. He's not even good for a TV actor, IMO. Routh had no chance because he didn't even play Superman, he played Christopher Reeve playing Superman. Cavill is a legit movie level actor and I expect good things from him. And Smallville is a modern version of the Silver Age, and that was what I loved about it, tbh.

Look, everyone has a version of the character that they prefer and there are a lot of reasons for why certain individuals and cohorts with certain demographics like some versions more than others. My view has always been as long as the themes or the message of the story remains intact, I can be open. I am even more open when a story is presented to me as a journey whereby the characters might think, feel, and act one way at one point but change (hopefully for the better) as a result of new experiences.

After 10 years of Smallville I'm pretty sick of Clark's journey to Superman tbh. I'm ready for some Superman.

[FirestormTheNuclearMan]

It looks like Superman is going to have to prove to doubters he's a super hero, and not a minatory alien.

[Lancerman]

I can't believe we are almost hitting 50 pages on this subject. Superhero movies are ADAPTATIONS. They are free to change whatever as long as the core concepts remain intact.

It's not like whats going on here is any different than
-Donner's Superman films
-Burton's Batman films
-Schumacher's Batman films
-Singer's X-Men films
-Raimi's Spider-man films
-Nolan's Batman films
-Downey Jr's Iron Man films
-Evan's Captain America film
-Helmsworth's Thor film
-Whedon's Avengers

etc.

[stk]

It's not like whats going on here is any different than

-Schumacher's Batman films

Good gravy, man, do not say that. Knock on wood or something, ffs.

[Eric Chang]

Lol this guy Kurosawa is just ignoring everyone's points and getting owned

[Namtab]

Lol this guy Kurosawa is just ignoring everyone's points and getting owned

He was actually coming around, on a few things, but there are others I don't think he'll ever agree with or accept.

Since Kurosawa and misslane are now talking about Smallville (In the MoS trailer thread), I couldn't care less who comes out on top.

[adkal]

Spoke to one of my brothers about the trailer yesterday (both my brothers were not pleased that the trailer wasn't there when the went to see The Hobbit, and that they were 'subjected to' the 10 minute Star Trek one), and he's of the view that 'this is enough for now; we don't need another one until April'.

I'm of two minds - I wouldn't mind another one in the interim but can also wait four months...

What say you?

[Kurosawa]

Lol this guy Kurosawa is just ignoring everyone's points and getting owned

Because I don't mindlessly drool over everything that they do? How about growing up?

[Mr. Holmes]

He was actually coming around, on a few things, but there are others I don't think he'll ever agree with or accept.

Since Kurosawa and misslane are now talking about Smallville (In the MoS trailer thread), I couldn't care less who comes out on top.

The two extremes of Superman fandom.

Btw did you do the Wayne of Gotham review on Amazon?